951753

This Site Is No Longer Active

Check out RESTITUTIO.org for new blog entries and podcasts. Feel free to browse through our content here, but we are no longer adding new posts.


Biblical Unitarian Books

  

Over the holidays I was at my father-in-law’s house and we were talking about the new “one God” books that had just been released. As we spoke it became clear that it was hard to keep them all straight (since there are now so many). As a result of this conversation I decided to put together a list of books that specifically address the idea of Christian monotheism. Perhaps this post will be of help to those looking to research this topic in the future. Let me know if I missed any. (These books are ordered alphabetically by the author’s last name)

Who Is Jesus? A Plea for a Return to Belief in Jesus the Messiah
by Sir Anthony Buzzard
paperback booklet, 40 pages
1986: Restoration Fellowship

It is a striking fact that Jesus never referred to himself as “God.” Equally remarkable is the New Testament’s use of the word “God”–in Greek ho theos–to refer to the Father alone, some 1325 times. In sharp contrast, Jesus is called “god” in a handful of texts only–perhaps no more than two. Why this impressive difference in New Testament usage, when so many seem to think that Jesus is no less “God” than his Father? This short 40 page e-booklet describes the simple doctrines that the Father of Jesus is the only true God and that his Son, Jesus, is the human Messiah. Available for free online in English, Hebrew, Italian, French, Spanish, Swedish, German, and Urdu. Click here to purchase.

 

Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound
by Sir Anthony Buzzard
paperback, 365 pages
1998: University Press of America

This important work is a detailed biblical investigation of the relationship of Jesus to the one God of Israel. The authors challenge the notion that biblical monotheism is legitimately represented by a Trinitarian view of God and demonstrate that within the bounds of the canon of Scripture Jesus is confessed as Messiah, Son of God, but not God Himself. Later Christological developments beginning in the second century, and under the influence of pagan Gnosticism, misrepresented the biblical doctrine of God and Christ by altering the terms of the biblical presentation of the Father and the Son. This fateful development laid the foundation of a revised, unscriptural creed which needs to be challenged. This book provides a definitive presentation of a Christology rooted in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. The authors present a sharply-argued appeal for an understanding of God and Jesus in the context of Christianity’s original, apostolic, unitary monotheism. Available for free online in Spanish, Czech, Polish, Italian, German (email request), Norwegian, and Russian. Click here to purchase (English only).

 

Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian
by Sir Anthony Buzzard
paperback, 465 pages
2007: Restoration Fellowship

There is a growing concern among evangelical scholars that evangelicalism, its doctrine of God and of the Gospel, may not be as securely rooted in Scripture as is often uncritically imagined. The accounts of the historical Jesus and his saving teaching, given us in three corroborating reports in Matthew, Mark and Luke, are often played down in favor of a set of verses from the letters of Paul. That “treadmill” of favorite evangelical proof-texts also relies heavily on John’s Gospel. This unbalanced use of Scripture results in a distortion of Jesus’ claim to be Messiah, Son of God, in relation to his Father whom he defined as “the only one who is truly God” (John 17:3).

The crux of the problem lies in this fact: Jesus’ own very Jewish creed, which he affirmed as the most important truth of all in agreement with a Jewish scribe (Mark 12:28-34), has been allowed no voice in the traditional creeds recited in Church. Worse still, when the unitary monotheistic creed of Jesus and Paul is advanced as the necessary bedrock of good Christian thinking, its exponents are likely to be charged with upsetting the longstanding findings of the church councils. They are even made unwelcome in church settings.

Anthony Buzzard invites scholars and laymen alike to take seriously Jesus’ Jewish creed, his recitation of the Shema, “Hear, O Israel,” which proclaims God to be one single Lord. Defining God and His Son biblically remains part of the unfinished work of the Reformation. The evidence placed before the reader shows that a major paradigm shift is needed if Christians are to worship their God in spirit and in truth, uncluttered by the philosophical and confusing ideas of God which form part of received church tradition. Buzzard’s thesis has enormous significance for the discussion among three great world religions — Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Click here to purchase.

 

One God: The Unfinished Reformation
by Robert Carden
paperback, 262 pages
2003: Grace Christian Press

For almost 500 years the Reformation has endeavored to return Christianity to the Bible. It has examined almost every belief imaginable in a search for truth. Every belief except one: the nature of God Himself.

One God: The Unfinished Reformation takes you into the heart of God’s Word to answer what should have been the first question of the Reformation: Who is God? The answer may surprise you, for the Bible says nothing of a Trinity, but firmly declares that there is only one God: the Father of Jesus Christ. Getting to know this one God is the most exciting quest any man or woman can ever undertake. Click here to purchase.

 

The Only True God
by Eric H. H. Chang
hardcover or paperback, 684 pages
2008: Xlibris Corporation

Monotheism–the belief in one and only God–is a cornerstone doctrine of the Christian faith. Yet seldom is this doctrine examined in the light of its Jewish roots and of God’s revelation in the Scriptures. The lack of a precise, Biblically-rooted monotheism in Christianity has far-reaching consequences for our spiritual lives, even hindering our ability to obey–with single-minded totality–a command that Jesus stresses repeatedly: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.”

When Jesus calls his Father “the only true God” in John 17:3, is he addressing his Father as one of the three Persons in the Godhead, or as one Person who alone is the only true God? What do the apostles teach us about the oneness of God? What do we make of John’s astounding statement that the Word became flesh?

The Only True God addresses these and other questions with insight and clarity. In the spirit of sola Scriptura–Scripture as sole authority for doctrine–the author surveys the voluminous Biblical data on monotheism in the hope that they may be studied constructively. While the book contains much material for intellectual reflection, its ultimate concern is for what is truly at stake: spiritual life, eternal life, and the faith delivered once for all to the saints.
Read it online or purchase it: paperback or hardcover.

 

One God & One Lord: Reconsidering the Cornerstone of the Christian Faith
by Mark H. Graeser, John A. Lynn, John W. Schoenheit
hardcover, 680 pages
2000: Christian Educational Services

“Who do you say that I am?”. Jesus of Nazareth posed this question to his followers nearly two thousand years ago, but the question still hangs in the air, requesting an answer from every person. Indeed, the question of the identity of Jesus Christ is the most important theological issue of all human history, because he claimed to be the human Son of the one true God. In this 680 page biblical research book, ONE GOD & ONE LORD, the authors carefully re-examine the biblical evidence in light of modern textual research and a thorough survey of scholarly opinion. They argue that the biblically accurate answer to the question of his identity is provided by Peter, John, Mary, Paul and other first-century believers who unanimously proclaimed him to be “the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Building an impressive and compelling case for the unity of the biblical testimony concerning the true humanity of Jesus, “the last Adam,” the authors reveal the profound significance of the two aspects of his coming: suffering and glory. They seek a view of Christ that allows for a total appreciation of his steadfast obedience to God in the face of temptation, suffering and even a humiliating death. Vindicated by his resurrection, he entered into glory and now sits in a position of functional equality with God, analogous to the relationship of Joseph and Pharaoh in the Book of Genesis. ONE GOD & ONE LORD shows how the traditional view of Jesus Christ actually demeans both his accomplishments and his heroism by attributing to him “intrinsic deity” that essentially eliminates the possibility of either authentic temptation or failure.

Because the Gospel of John is often isolated and magnified to establish and fortify orthodox Christology, the authors explore in depth the unique depiction of Christ in “the Fourth Gospel”. They succeed in placing John’s testimony harmoniously and understandably within the margins of the prophetic portrait of the Messiah. This portrait had already been drawn out in detail in the Hebrew Scriptures and was then fleshed out in the Synoptic Gospels. Nowhere in this portrait is it clear that Messiah was “God incarnate,” “God the Son,” or a pre-existent divine visitor.

Appealing primarily to scriptural authority and logical reasoning, ONE GOD & ONE LORD also thoroughly examines the historical process by which traditional Christian orthodoxy came to be established. A combination of misguided Christian piety and pagan speculation are shown to be responsible for the intrusion of unbiblical concepts into basic Christian thought and doctrine.

ONE GOD & ONE LORD is challenging, but profoundly encourages both Christian devotion and a deep appreciation for the integrity of the Bible. It will reward the careful attention of the critic of Christianity, the new Christian, students of the Bible, pastors, teachers and scholars. Read excerpts online or click here to purchase.

 

To God be the Glory
by Joel W. Hemphill
paperback, 390 pages
2006: Trumpet Call Books

In the spring of 1986 I had an awesome encounter with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Along with many other things that He told me, He said for me to study the Scripture, as He was going to reveal Himself to me in His word. This seemed strange as I was forty-six years old, had been saved since I was ten, had been a minister of the Gospel since the age of nineteen, and thought I had a pretty good grasp on who He was. I was mistaken!

This book does not seek to diminish Jesus in any way. God forbid! Neither should it ever be used to try and do so. He is everything the Holy Bible says he is, the virgin born, righteous, anointed, appointed, approved Son of God, Messiah of Israel.

Finally, I have approached the subject of this writing carefully and prayerfully as its importance is too great to get it wrong. I have also kept in mind Jesus’ words to Peter, “Feed my sheep” and “feed my lambs.” These are of different maturity and need different food. Perhaps there are even a few goats. The challenge is to awaken the goats without harming the sheep and lambs. Only time will tell if I have succeeded. I love you all. Click here to purchase in English or German.

 

The Tyranny of the Trinity: The Orthodox Cover-up
by P. R. Lackey
paperback, 360 pages
2008: AuthorHouse

The Tyranny of the Trinity lends a “Voice of Reason” to a biblically unsubstantiated doctrine. This book will afford readers a more fair and balanced approach to the Scriptures which have been so distorted by the mishandling and misinterpretations of clergy via thier creeds and doctrines. The conscientious truth-seeker will be given a perspective contrary to what they have perennially been taught primarily through tradition and generational adherence to a particular belief. Justice is only served when “all the facts” are known. A lie told long enough carries more weight the the truth; hence, the Trinity. The Trinity is perceived as a “mystery” even withn its own camp, but continues to remain the Cornerstone a of Christianity. Those who do not embace this doctine are considered heretics! This is the con job bequeathed on Judeo-Christianity by the early Church Fathers. Click here to purchase.

 

The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in Its Jewish Context
by James F. McGrath
paperback, 168 pages
2009: University of Illinois Press

Monotheism, the idea that there is only one true God, is a powerful religious concept that was shaped by competing ideas and the problems they raised. Surveying New Testament writings and Jewish sources from before and after the rise of Christianity, James F. McGrath argues that even the most developed Christologies in the New Testament fit within the context of first century Jewish “monotheism.” In doing so, he pinpoints more precisely when the parting of ways took place over the issue of God’s oneness, and he explores philosophical ideas such as “creation out of nothing,” which caused Jews and Christians to develop differing concepts and definitions about God. Click here to purchase.

 

Divine Truth or Human Tradition?: A Reconsideration of the Roman Catholic-Protestant Doctrine of the Trinity in Light of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures
by Patrick Navas
paperback, 576 pages
2006: AuthorHouse

In Divine Truth or Human Tradition? the author examines the viewpoints and Scripture expositions of prominent evangelical scholars and apologists; including popular author and debater Dr. James R. White (author of The Forgotten Trinity), John MacArthur (President of The Master’s Seminary), Wayne Grudem (author of the widely-read Systematic Theology), Robert Bowman Jr. (author of Why You Should Believe in the Trinity), Robert Morey (Founder of California Biblical University & Seminary and author of The Trinity, Evidence and Issues), R. C. Sproul (President of Ligonier Ministries), Robert L. Reymond (author of Jesus, Divine Messiah and A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith), and others.

According to what has long been considered mainstream Christian “orthodoxy,” the doctrine of the Trinity (the idea that the one true God is–in the ultimate sense–a divine being made up of three co-equal and co-eternal persons) is not only central to the Christian faith, but absolutely necessary for one to accept in order to be counted as a true Christian and be saved. Such a demand on a Christian’s faith has come across as strange and perplexing to many, especially so in light of the fact pointed out by one respected Trinitarian:

“[The Trinity] is not clearly or explicitly taught anywhere in Scripture, yet it is widely regarded as a central doctrine, indispensable to the Christian faith. In this regard, it goes contrary to what is virtually an axiom [that is, a given, a self-evident truth] of biblical doctrine, namely, that there is a direct correlation between the scriptural clarity of a doctrine and its cruciality to the faith and life of the church.” (Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons, p. 11. Emphasis added)

Understandably, this fact has raised questions in the minds of Christians and truth-seekers alike ever since the doctrine was first decreed as mandatory to confess in the late 4th century. Many Christians have wondered: How can a doctrine that is not clearly or explicitly taught in the Bible be considered mandatory to accept in order to be a true practitioner of the Christian faith? Since it is not taught by Scripture in a straightforward way, is it possible that the doctrine of the Trinity is not an authentic representation of God’s nature and of the original apostolic faith? Were the councils correct in decreeing that it is obligatory for Christians to accept the concept of the Trinity in order to be saved? Or, does such a pronouncement go beyond the original apostolic doctrine? Few Evangelical Christians have been willing to explore these issues in depth. Most are familiar with the arguments commonly advanced to defend the idea. But how many are familiar with alternative (yet scripturally harmonious) ways to understand the classic “proof-texts”? Surprisingly–as research has revealed–Trinitarians themselves provide most of the alternative answers. Click here to purchase.

 

Our Heavenly Father Has No Equals: Unitarianism, Trinitarianism, and the Necessity of Biblical Proof
by Donald R. Snedeker
hardcover or paperback, 537 pages
1998: International Scholars Publications

“Our Heavenly Father Has No Equals” is a complete defense of the unitarian Christian understanding of the nature of God. Along the lines of Buzzard and Hunting’s “The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound” in terms of style and content, it is a more thorough analysis with a chapter devoted to a verse-by-verse reply to Trinitarian claims. It is highly recommended for those who question the doctrine handed down to them by their denominational tradition. As in the case with Buzzard and Hunting, Donald R. Snedeker has provided an effective tool for the Radical Reformation-the recovery of apostolic doctrine as it was known in the first century. (review by J. Thomson taken from Amazon.com). Out of print (prices range from $75 to over $400). Click here to purchase.

 

The Restitution of Jesus Christ
by Kermit Zarley, a.k.a. Servetus the Evangelical
wire-O, ~600 pages
2008: self published

The Restitution of Jesus Christ may be the most formidable, comprehensive, well-researched, biblically in-depth book to ever challenge the church dogma that Jesus is God. Yet it affirms all other major church teachings about Jesus, including his virgin birth, sinlessness, miracles, atonement, resurrection, ascension, heavenly exaltation, and future return to establish his earthly kingdom. This book is based on a conservative view of the inspiration of the Bible. So, it affirms the historical integrity of its four gospels. They tell almost all we know about Jesus of Nazareth.

The book begins with an Introduction. Chapters 2-3 provide 100 pages of the history of identity Christology (study of Jesus’ identity). Chapter 4 is about the Old Testament and Judaism. The remainder of the book addresses mostly the exegesis of the major New Testament texts which have commonly been believed to support the view that Jesus was and is God. They include the following: John 1.1c, 18; 5.18; 10.30; 20.28; Romans 9.5; Philippians 2.6-11; 1 Timothy 2.5; 3.16; 2 Thessalonians 1.12; Titus 2.13; Hebrews 1.8-9; 2 Peter 1.1; 1 John 5.20. This material is arranged according to biblical authors. Therefore, chapters are titled “Christology of the Synoptists,” “Christology of John,” “Christology of Paul,” etc. Click here to purchase.

 

171 Responses to “Biblical Unitarian Books”

  1. on 14 Jan 2010 at 3:37 pmKen

    Sean,
    Thanks for the info. I have 6 of the books listed, and I just ordered a couple more using this site. It’s always valuable to me to get new insights from explanations such as studies of the verses in Colossians 1 (for example) as well as more historical detail as to how monotheism was compromised so many years ago. It seems I get frequent chances to share about this all important topic.

  2. on 18 Jan 2010 at 5:14 pmrobert

    i found this to be good reading on the sunject too

    http://www.antipas.org/books/pwhite_trinity/pwt_.html

  3. on 16 Feb 2010 at 2:20 amFenton

    John MacArthur & Pretrib Rapture

    Who knows, maybe John (Reformedispy) MacArthur is right and the greatest Greek scholars (Google “Famous Rapture Watchers”), who uniformly said that Rev. 3:10 means PRESERVATION THROUGH, were wrong. But John has a conflict. On the one hand, since he knows that all Christian theology and organized churches before 1830 believed the church would be on earth during the tribulation, he would like to be seen as one who stands with the great Reformers. On the other hand, if John has a warehouse of unsold pretrib rapture material, and if he wants to have “security” for his retirement years and hopes that the big California quake won’t louse up his plans, he has a decided conflict of interest. Maybe the Lord will have to help strip off the layers of his seared conscience which have grown for years in order to please his parents and his supporters – who knows? One thing is for sure: pretrib is truly a house of cards and is so fragile that if a person removes just one card from the TOP of the pile, the whole thing can collapse. Which is why pretrib teachers don’t dare to even suggest they could be wrong on even one little subpoint! Don’t you feel sorry for the straitjacket they are in? While you’re mulling all this over, Google “Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty” for a rare behind-the-scenes look at the same 180-year-old fantasy.

  4. on 26 Mar 2010 at 9:22 pmXavier

    Hey guys,

    Check Rubinstein’s “When Jesus Became God” and this new one: http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Wars-Patriarchs-Emperors-Christians/dp/0061768944

  5. on 22 Apr 2010 at 10:18 pmChuck LaMattina

    I have a published book “Foundations for Faith” and three of the chapters deal with the truth that there is only one God this being Yahweh.

  6. on 11 Jun 2010 at 7:00 pmAnthony Buzzard

    Thanks for listing all these resources for the seeker after the truth of the creed as promoted by Jesus. It is a strking fact that Christianity must be the only world religion which discards the creed of its own founder! How can this substitution of Mark 12:29 (Jesus’ creed) with the creed of Nicea 3:25 be valid. Does this abandonment of Jesus’ central doctrine of God point to a huge mistake in the Christian system?

  7. on 11 Jun 2010 at 8:51 pmDoubting Thomas

    Anthony
    Nice to hear from you again. It is amazing that Jesus’ creed, “Hear O Israel; The Lord your God, the Lord is one. And you should love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.”

    Has been changed to “Hear O Israel; The Lord your God, the Lord is one, but sometimes three, depending on the situation….”

  8. on 11 Jun 2010 at 9:16 pmRay

    I just received my copy of Divine Truth or Human Tradition by Patrick
    Navas. I’ve only looked at it a little, haven’t even broke it in yet by folding the pages (first page, last page, second page, second to the last page, etc) but did get to look at it some.

    Some questions I have asked on this blog were being answered in it. It’s written in quite a scholarly way by an educated and gifted teacher, only about 30 years of age.

    Because it deals with things in scholarly depth, due to the matter at hand, I expect there will be a lot I will not get from it.

    I usually find little interest in scholarly works due to their depth in words, rules of language, etc. I can easily lose the simple meaning of a thing if it is beyond my education level. Even so, I expect there to be much I can get from it.

    I looked toward the end of the book to see if I could get the conclusion of the whole matter and found myself in a chapter on the Holy Spirit which I found interesting, reading the same kind of observations I believe I have been led into by the same spirit.

    If you have some theological education I do think you may want to consider this book as one to read. Though Patrick’s education is quite a bit above my level, I do find that his communication is often quite clear to me. I think he’s a good communicator, one that is quite knowledgeable.

    This is a book about the Trinity Doctrine from the perspective of one who has not given himself over to the teaching of it. I suppose that means it qualifies as “Unitarian”. (Yes, Patrick confesses that there is one God.)

  9. on 11 Jun 2010 at 9:55 pmXavier

    Ray

    I first came upon Navas’ book years ago and was lucky enough to meet him in California 2 years ago.

    Great book, highly recommended. Just note that the author is still “on the fence” regarding the preexistence topic. Some readers may not find conclusive statements regarding the subject.

    Also, you can download and read online Anthony’s Focus on the Kingdom magazine online [also available in Spanish]: http://focusonthekingdom.org/magazine.htm

  10. on 12 Jun 2010 at 7:58 amSean

    Dear Chuck LaMattina,

    I did include your book at the bottom of the list with my father’s and Deuble’s because they contain partial content.

  11. on 12 Jun 2010 at 9:34 amRay

    It’s my prayer that Patrick Navas will come to full assurity that Jesus has indeed been with the Father from eternity, in real time, even before it began. (as we sometimes think of time)

    I believe Patrick has a bright future ahead of him. I say this not just because he believes in Jesus (for we all do who believe in him) but because God has blessed him in knowledge, teaching ability, and good communication skills.

  12. on 12 Jun 2010 at 10:58 amXavier

    Ray

    I do not know if you have noticed but most people on here are not Arians.

  13. on 12 Jun 2010 at 3:57 pmRon S.

    And Ray,

    In case you’re not totally sure what Xaiver is saying – he means believing that Jesus pre-existed his birth as a literal, “alive” being.

    Most of us are Christian Unitarians and do NOT believe that Jesus was “indeed with the Father from eternity” – except in the plan & intentions of God.

    Jesus only came into literal existence when God created him in the womb of Mary. Just as all other human beings do (when a sperm cell enters an egg for fertilization). At that moment human beings come into literal existence. So it was with Jesus. God’s Holy Spirit caused that to happen – ensuring that Jesus was from the seed of Eve and a descendant of King David. But he was “begotten” of God as the 2nd Adam – brought about according to the timing & plan of God.

  14. on 12 Jun 2010 at 10:23 pmXavier

    Ron S.

    Amen brother!

    What first caught my eye regarding the literal preexistence Christology is the fact that throughout the scriputres others are also said to have been “before the world was” [Eph 1.4; 2Tim 1.9].

    Always wondered why this type of language was reinterpreted to mean something other than an ideal preexistence when it came to Jesus and not those other believers.

  15. on 12 Jun 2010 at 11:28 pmRay

    What if a 2013 Corvette catches my eye today and right now I make a willful choice to purchase one?

  16. on 13 Jun 2010 at 12:13 amDoubting Thomas

    Ray
    I’m sorry, but I don’t understand the analogy your trying to make…

  17. on 13 Jun 2010 at 1:14 amXavier

    Ray

    Stick to scripture bro… 🙂

  18. on 13 Jun 2010 at 11:11 amRay

    Let’s suppose a man was a designer for GM. He has a design for a certain Corvette in mind, on paper, in 3-D computer design, a clay model, even a prototype, fully opperational. It’s kept secret by the company, but it does in fact exist. It’s unknown to the public. He refers to it as a 2013 model.

    Now let’s suppose he also has another design for a Corvette and it’s similar in design but it comes about later in his plan. This model
    in fact has been conceived upon his previous plans. He also has other plans in mind of the same line which he calls Corvette, and they too will be revealed in time, each year unique but based upon the same design as the origional Corvette.

    Like the prototype of the 2013 Corvette, I believe Jesus did exist before he was revealed to the world in the flesh. Unlike the 2013 Corvette prototype, Jesus did not have a body until it came time for him to be revealed to the world in that form. Prior to that time
    he was in the form of God who is Spirit, being his Son from above.

    We as the later designs of the Corvette have been designed by our maker which is God, but did not come about in the flesh till our time which God knew, and became known as our days in the flesh on this earth, but we have been designed to be as his first Son, Jesus, just as the later Corvettes have been designed to follow after the first designs of the designer who worked for GM, each one having it’s unique characteristics, but all are according to the one Corvette line. Let’s say that in this example there are not two Corvette lines, only one, with each year’s models being unique.

  19. on 13 Jun 2010 at 11:42 amDoubting Thomas

    Ray
    I think it might help if you could tell us which scripture exactly has convinced you that Jesus must have pre-existed before his birth and maybe we can go from there…

  20. on 13 Jun 2010 at 2:38 pmTim

    Xavier / DT and others,

    Ray seems to be making the standard unitarian argument, by analogy, that Jesus pre-existed in the mind or plan of God. It makes perfect sense to me.

    Xavier – let’s be honest with ourselves … nowhere does Scripture say that Jesus pre-existed in the mind or plan of God, either …

  21. on 13 Jun 2010 at 5:37 pmDoubting Thomas

    Tim
    I’ve been thinking about what you said all afternoon and you are right. If Ray wants to believe that Jesus pre-existed in some way I don’t see how that can hurt anybody. I personally believe that Jesus did not pre-exist before his birth, but the reality is I could be wrong…

  22. on 13 Jun 2010 at 6:09 pmrobert

    Thomas
    The problem is everything we credit Jesus with did exist prior to Jesus’ birth except for the truth of who Jesus really was.
    He was 100% human with 100% human origin but within the unitarian doctrine we find here He is at the least 50% human and 50% God and within the trinitarian doctrine He is 100% human and 100% God ,Add in the oneness doctrine of 100% God and You are going to get an induced confusion because not a single one of the 3 doctrines can exist without the part that is God not pre existing Jesus’ birth. why cant all 3 doctrines see it was the gift of the Holy spirit that spoke and did miracles though the Complete human Jesus. If Jesus was any of what the 3 doctrines claim then there would of been no need for the Holy spirit to indwell Jesus or no reason for Jesus to wait to start his ministry at the late age of 30. Certainly if he was what any of the 3 claim we should see that others prophets came to age even as children to start their ministry.
    Why should Ray be set apart when his belief is just as scriptual as any of the 3.

  23. on 13 Jun 2010 at 8:27 pmDoubting Thomas

    Robert
    You asked, “Why can’t all 3 doctrines see it was the gift of the Holy Spirit that spoke and did miracles through the Complete human Jesus.”

    I agree. But, unfortunately, it seems we humans are naturally argumentative and will quickly split into small groups to try to keep our ideas pure.

    You also asked, “Why should Ray be set apart when his belief is just as scriptural as any of the 3.”

    Again, I agree. All three of my best friends are Trinitarians, but they accept me as a fellow Christian even though they don’t agree with my beliefs on the Trinity and the Godhead. I think they do it for three reasons.

    1. They know I’m sincere.
    2. They know I’m a basically a good person.
    And 3. They know I’m a Christian that tries my best to study and understand the word of God.

    Ever since I’ve come to this site last Christmas people have being trying to convince Ray to change his beliefs on this topic. Personally I’ve decided to accept Ray and his ideas and to stop trying to convince him to change in order to fit my particular beliefs. Because I know he is sincere, I know he is basically a good person, and I know that he tries his best to study and understand the word of God…

  24. on 13 Jun 2010 at 8:36 pmXavier

    Tim

    …let’s be honest with ourselves … nowhere does Scripture say that Jesus pre-existed in the mind or plan of God, either …

    The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed. But woe to that man who betrays him! Lu 22.22

    People of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge. Acts 2.22-23

    He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. 1Pe 1.20

    All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world. Rev 13.8

  25. on 13 Jun 2010 at 8:50 pmTim

    Xavier,

    None of those verses directly support the unitarian interpretation that Jesus existed in the plan of God or the mind of God. They are prophecies about him or of what would happen to him.

    My only point was that Ray’s interpetation is just as legitimate as the unitarian interpretation of the verses that you mention …

    We rightly challenge trinitarians to show us where the scriptures say that “Jesus is God” … we should not make the same mistakes that they do and treat our explanations as scripturally founded …

  26. on 13 Jun 2010 at 9:35 pmXavier

    Tim

    I only quoted some of the many biblical verses that clearly teach an ideal preexistence when it comes not only to the person of the Messiah, but of believers and certain men of God as well.

    I challenge any trini to show me from the same scriptures a literal preexistence, of a distinct and personal being [or beings] that existed prior to their human origin on earth.

  27. on 13 Jun 2010 at 10:17 pmRay

    As far as I can tell, nowhere in scripture is the idea given that Jesus did not exist from eternity.

  28. on 13 Jun 2010 at 10:24 pmRay

    Thomas, as per request of #19, one of the verses I did not find mentioned in a book that seemed to cover all the verses concerning the sonship of Jesus, was Micah 5:2.

    Micah 5:2 caught my attention because it says that the one (the messiah) who was to be born of Bethlehem had “goings forth” even from everlasting.

    It seemed to me that such a one who went forth of old must have at such a time existed, was, and therefore could do such a thing.

  29. on 13 Jun 2010 at 10:36 pmDoubting Thomas

    Ray
    Micah 5:2 says, “But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from old, from ancient days.”

    I can see how you could interpret it that way. Like I said in message #21, I could be wrong in my interpretation. You certainly have given me something to think about…

  30. on 13 Jun 2010 at 10:47 pmrobert

    Thomas, Ray
    Here is something below to consider.
    Also according to the early church fathers the original gospel of Matthew in hebrew didnt include any verses before John the Baptist was baptizing. this is not speaking of Jesus

    The gospel of Matthew (2:5-6) claims that Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem fulfils this prophecy. But this is unlikely since
    “Bethlehem Ephratah” in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb’s second wife, Ephrathah (1 Chr.2:18, 2:50-52, 4:4).

    The prophecy (if that is what it is) does not refer to the Messiah, but rather to a military leader, as can be seen from verse 5:6. This leader is supposed to defeat the Assyrians, which, of course, Jesus never did.
    It should also be noted that Matthew altered the text of Micah 5:2 by saying: “And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda” rather than “Bethlehem Ephratah” as is said in Micah 5:2. He did this, intentionally no doubt, to make the verse appear to refer to the town of Bethlehem rather than the family clan.

  31. on 13 Jun 2010 at 11:35 pmDoubting Thomas

    Thanks Robert, I will take that into consideration…

  32. on 14 Jun 2010 at 12:08 amRay

    I would like to challenge all Unitarians to provide me with all the scripture verses that seem to suggest that Jesus did not exist prior to his conception in the womb of Mary.

    I will try to provide verses that seem to suggest that he did.

    As this is a matter of faith, please remember that we are looking for verses that “Seem to suggest”, and… let’s be honest about it.

    Is anyone game?

  33. on 14 Jun 2010 at 7:38 amTim

    Xavier –

    We are in agreement … this discussion of “ideal” vs. “literal” is along the lines of debating how many souls can dance on the head of a pin. It may be of philosophical interest, but little practical value. It is my experience that trinitarians are the ones that assert that we must agree with their concept of the eternal realm (i.e., that there is such a thing as the oxymoronic “pre-existence).

  34. on 14 Jun 2010 at 7:49 amXavier

    Ray

    I would like to challenge all Unitarians to provide me with all the scripture verses that seem to suggest that Jesus did not exist prior to his conception in the womb of Mary.

    This is an account of the origin of Jesus the Messiah…The origin of Jesus the Messiah was like thisMat 1.1, 18

    The holy spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; for that reason the holy child will be called the Son of God. Luke 1:35

    It is more important to examine God’s own story as He prepared to bring his unique Son on to the scene of history, “when He brought the firstborn into the world” (Heb. 1:6). “In the fullness of time God sent forth his Son, coming into existence from a woman” (Gal. 4:4)…

    Note the deliberate and unusual use of ginomai here and in Rom. 1:3 to express the beginning of existence, not just birth. Compare the genesis of Jesus in Matt. 1:18. Note that the normal word to express birth is gennao (see Job 14:1; 25:4).

    Hebrew prophecy had announced the birth of Messiah in Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2). God had “raised up” Jesus, that is, put him on the scene of history,4 and then sent him as His commissioned agent to deliver the Gospel to Israel (Acts 3:26). This verse should put to rest any suggestion that if God “sent” Jesus it must mean that Jesus was alive and conscious before his conception. Peter says that God first produced the Messiah and then sent him as His authorized representative and prophet. The detail of just how Jesus, God’s Son, came to be is the subject also of the united and definitive testimony of Matthew and Luke, who provide by far the longest and most detailed accounts of the origin of the Son of God. Both writers intend to anchor the origin of the Son of God firmly in history. And these writers provide the basic ABCs of Christian theology and are rightly placed at the beginning of our canon.Jesus Was not a Trinitarian, Anthony Buzzard, p 159, 205.

  35. on 14 Jun 2010 at 1:10 pmrobert

    Xavier
    Actually Hebrews 1 :5-14 isnt refering to Jesus’ birth as a human,it is refering to Him being begotten from the dead at his resurrection. The first clue is in verse 6 that states FIRST begotten, unless we are all going to be born from a virgin as humans than this doesnt apply to Jesus’ birth in the flesh. It apllies to his being begotten from the dead which he was first to become the son of God in that spiritual way. His being begotten from the dead is what we will be at our resurrection if we are found worthy like Jesus was.
    All before reference to Jesus as the son of God had to do with titles he was appointed and annointed to fill like King,Priest and Prophet which appointments came at different times. Like his being proclaim by God as future King of Israel when God overshadowed his conception when he caused the conception of Joseph’s seed in a virgin by the power of the Holy spirit as clearly stated in Luke

  36. on 14 Jun 2010 at 8:35 pmRandy

    Robert

    “Joseph’s seed.” Haven’t heard or read of that before. If that were true Jesus would be the son of Joseph and not the Son of God. Mary’s egg was supernaturally fertilized by the spirit of God when the spirit of God came upon her.

  37. on 14 Jun 2010 at 8:46 pmRay

    I know there are a few verses from Isaiah that might seem to indicate that Jesus was not with God in the beginning, for Isaiah speaks of God being alone when he created the world, having done it by himself.

    So there are a few verses that might seem to say such a thing.

    I also am aware of quite a few verses that seem to indicate that Jesus was indeed with God from everlasting, being with God as God created all things.

    It seems to me that quite likely I will find more verses that seem to say that Jesus was with God from eternity, or in the beginning than I would find that would seem to say that he was not there with God at that time.

    I believe there are ways to interpret what God said in Isaiah that
    would not necessarily say something that one might at first think it to be saying.

  38. on 14 Jun 2010 at 8:55 pmrobert

    “If that were true Jesus would be the son of Joseph and not the Son of God.”

    Randy
    Son of God was a title giving to all anointed Kings of Israel and Judah.
    this verse states just that and mentions only one father albeit it was his granfather through Joseph. The whole context is kingship.
    32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

    Jesus wasnt begotten by God till his resurrection as it states in Romans 1
    4 And declared [1] to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
    Till that he was the seed of David through the only connection ever mentioned in the bible as also stated in Romans1
    3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

    Every anointing of King used Psalm 2:7
    I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

    this also could be said at any anointing by God like priest and prophets.

  39. on 14 Jun 2010 at 10:09 pmXavier

    robert

    Actually Hebrews 1 :5-14 isnt refering to Jesus’ birth as a human,it is refering to Him being begotten from the dead at his resurrection.

    Another view suggests that vv.5-6 are all in reference to Jesus’ human birth [origin-genesis, Mat 1.1, 18].

    For example “some take ‘again’ to introduce the quotation (as in 1:5) and understand this as Christ’s first coming [i.e. his birth]…” [NET Bible].

    This view is supported by the clear birth allusion cited by Ps 2.7, describing Messiah’s “begetting” [gennao, “generation”; cp. ginomai, “coming into existence”, Rom 1.3]. And the angels worshipping the birth of the Messiah at Luke 2.13-14 [cp. Heb. 1.6].

    Also note this revealing quote from a standard orthodox Dictionary on the meaning of the word gennao [begetting, beget, generation] in relation to the birth of Messiah:

    Spoken of the relationship between God and the Messiah, called His Son. The designation of this relationship by words with a temporal notion has troubled theologians, who have proffered various explanations.

    Origen understood this as referring to the Son’s relationship within the Trinity and was the first to propose the concept of eternal generation. The Son is said to be eternally begotten by the Father. WordStudy Dictionary

  40. on 13 Nov 2010 at 12:43 amRyan

    Several times it speaks of Jesus being the ONLY begotten Son of God. This of coarse means he was born as Gods son. And when you look at the geneology in Luke it speaks Adam being The Son of God. Paul also said that Jesus was the second Adam who took away what the first Adam caused. Adam was created a man and not begotten, so he was not born of a women but formed from the dust. Jesus was begotten, or born of a women in whom the Father placedin her womb his seed by His power, holy spirit. Though I see some have said begotten is speaking of the ressurecton, which many times it does. But this not only speaks of begotten, but His only begotten Son.
    Also on another note, I see some say Jesus has always existed (if I understand correctly) which would mean He was not created, which cannot be since He is a man (second man) which was raised from the dead. I am not saying that those who believe this are saying Jesus is and was God, only that it is very difficult to explain how a man can pre-exist and still be a man and if He did pre-exist how was He placed in Mary’s womb, being He already existed. I understand how some can see this in certain verses but when you look at Gods word as a whole, which is what gives us understanding, there is no logical way or even scriptual way that Christ pre-existed. Just a thought

  41. on 13 Nov 2010 at 12:04 pmXavier

    Ryan

    Adam was created a man and not begotten, so he was not born of a women but formed from the dust. Jesus was begotten, or born of a women…

    Both created beings to be sure though. Just in different ways. In Jesus’ case “procreated” by God through Mary.

    …I see some have said begotten is speaking of the ressurecton, which many times it does.

    Where exactly do we find the language of “begotten” in relation to his resurrection? If you mean Acts 13.32-33, note that the KJV adds the word “again” to “God raised up Jesus”, which is not in the Greek [I have even seen some add the words “from the dead”, Ehrman, Orthodox Corruption; Dunn, Christology in Making].

    …there is no logical way or even scriptual way that Christ pre-existed.

    AMEN!

    By this you know the Spirit of God:

    Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ was truly a human being is from God.

    And every spirit that does not confess that Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. 1 John 4.2-3

  42. on 13 Nov 2010 at 12:47 pmJaco

    …I wonder if Ryan isn’t Michael under a pseudonym…

    The allusion to the “seed placed in Mary’s womb” and the overall coherence of the text are just too coincidental…

    If I am wrong, I apologise; but time will tell as will be judged by Ryan’s manners.

    Welcome, Ryan

  43. on 13 Nov 2010 at 1:22 pmXavier

    Jaco

    Whose “Michael”?

  44. on 13 Nov 2010 at 2:16 pmDoubting Thomas

    Welcome to KR Ryan,
    You said, “I am not saying that those that believe this are saying Jesus is and was God, only that it is very difficult to explain how a man can pre-exist and still be a man and if He did pre-exist how was he placed in Mary’s womb, being he already existed…there is no logical way or scriptural way that Christ pre-existed.”

    To which Xavier replied, “AMEN!”

    I agree with both you and Xavier. When I look at the bible as a whole this idea of pre-existence just doesn’t seem to hold any water. I do not believe a person could pre-exist since before creation and still be considered a human like the rest of us. He wouldn’t be anything like the rest of us.

    Deuteronomy 18:15 Moses says, “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers — it is to him shall listen…”

  45. on 13 Nov 2010 at 2:25 pmJaco

    Xavier, check out 20 Reasons Why the Trinity Is Unbiblical (16)
    under the last posts… You’ll understand why. If I’m wrong, I’m sorry.

  46. on 13 Nov 2010 at 2:28 pmXavier

    DT

    Double AMEN! 🙂

    Check this out from G. Dalman in his The Words of Jesus, 1902, pp. 44-54.

    The statements as to preexistence in the Similitudes of Enoch, of 2 Esdras, and in Pesikta Rabbati, do not presuppose any human birth of Messiah. He is to make his appearance upon earth as a fully developed personality

    Judaism has never known anything of a pre-existence peculiar to the Messiah antecedent to his birth as a human being.

    …after the Similitudes of Enoch the only representatives of the idea independent of Enoch are 2 Esdras in the first Christian century, and the Appendix to Pesikta Rabbati, independently of both these sources, in the seventh or eighth century.

    The dominance of the idea in any Jewish circle whatever cannot seriously be upheld.

  47. on 13 Nov 2010 at 10:52 pmrobert

    “Where exactly do we find the language of “begotten” in relation to his resurrection? ”

    Xavier
    Turn the page to Revelation 1:5
    Born of the dead is in reference to His RESURRECTION in which he was the first begotten.
    Unless you claim he pre-existed and died to be put in the womb of Mary then you will find that this is the only literal sense that he is the Son of God.

  48. on 14 Nov 2010 at 12:24 amXavier

    robert

    Rev 1.5 uses prototokos in reference to Jesus being the first to be resurrected to immortal life.

    No relation to his “birth” [gennao, Ps 2.7; Heb 1.5; 5.5] or genesis [Mat 1.1, 18].

    It wouldn’t make sense if the NT writers used begetting language in reference to Jesus being raised back to life.

  49. on 14 Nov 2010 at 1:15 amDoubting Thomas

    Xavier,
    You said, “Judaism has never known anything of a pre-existence peculiar to the Messiah antecedent to his birth as a human being.”

    I agree. There is nothing that I am aware of in my reading of the O.T. writings that would indicate otherwise. I wonder how and when the idea of a pre-existent Messiah came into being???

  50. on 14 Nov 2010 at 1:07 pmrobert

    “Rev 1.5 uses prototokos in reference to Jesus being the first to be resurrected to immortal life.

    No relation to his “birth” [gennao, Ps 2.7; Heb 1.5; 5.5] or genesis [Mat 1.1, 18].

    It wouldn’t make sense if the NT writers used begetting language in reference to Jesus being raised back to life. ”

    Xavier
    I dont know who told you that this word has nothing to do with begetting.Prototokos is used 8 times and carries the meaning of being born(begat) unless you claim the use of it in Luke was meaning She was going to be the mother of all that is resurrected.If you break down that word you will find that it is 2 words proto(first) and tokos(born,begotten) and has no meaning whats so ever for resurrected unless you understand that the resurrection is who Jesus and his brethren become the literal Sons of God.
    This word was only compounded by the lexicons to obscure the true meaning because Jesus’ Literal birth at his resurrection causes all other references to Jesus as the son of God prior to his resurrection as figurative.

    Col 1:18
    He is the head of the body, the church, as well as the beginning, the firstborn 1 from among the dead, so that he himself may become first in all things.

    Heb 1:6
    But when he again brings 1 his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all the angels of God worship him!” 2

    Rom 8:29
    because those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that his Son 1 would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 2

    Luk 2:7
    And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in strips of cloth 1 and laid him in a manger, 2 because there was no place for them in the inn. 3

  51. on 14 Nov 2010 at 7:48 pmXavier

    DT

    I wonder how and when the idea of a pre-existent Messiah came into being???

    I think with the [Gentile] Church Fathers of the 1st-2nd centuries. There’s a good compilation of quotes and such from K.N. Stovra in his excellent site Trinity on Trial, under “ANTE-NICENE WITNESS”:

    http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/theology/deity/trinity.html

  52. on 14 Nov 2010 at 9:20 pmDoubting Thomas

    Xavier,
    Thanks for the link. I agree with you that the ‘Trinity on Trial’ site is an excellent site. I read several of the articles. It appears to be set up more for scholars than someone like me. But I was able to understand most of what I read. Unfortunately I couldn’t find anything that was titled “Ante-Nicene Witness”. I will go back later and look around some more.

    Thanks again for the link… 🙂

  53. on 15 Nov 2010 at 8:25 amXavier

    DT

    In the main page its on your upper left hand side.

  54. on 15 Nov 2010 at 10:57 amrobert

    Ryan
    I think a lot of the confusion of who Jesus was comes from the english translation of monogenes as only begotten.
    Here is an excellent study of the use of monogenes in several translations into several languages in which only one supports the translation as only begotten.There is also some early writings that show it is a mistranslation.
    Now while the person who wrote this did an excellent job, He then goes on to come to a conclusion that is not supported by the bible at all, but does so because his belief forces a false conclusion by ignoring the fact that Jesus receives a beginning in the womb of Mary.
    I find it amazing that a person’s belief can make them so blind to the truth

    http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/sonship/monogene.htm

  55. on 15 Nov 2010 at 7:27 pmDoubting Thomas

    Xavier,
    I’m embarrassed. It’s right there at the very top. Don’t know how I missed it. I have already read a few of the articles below it. I’m going to continue reading the rest of them…

    Robert,
    You said, “I find it amazing that a person’s belief can make them so blind to the truth.”

    I used to say that ‘truth was perception’, but lately I have realized that this is not correct. What I should have been saying is ‘perception is reality’ but this perceived reality is not necessarily the truth.

    For example if you are claustrophobic and afraid of small enclosed spaces (like elevators) this would be a reality for you. Even though the ‘truth’ is that there is nothing about being in a small enclosed space that is actually dangerous.

    It seems our beliefs (whether based on truth or not) determine our perceived realities. That’s why it is virtually impossible for any ‘one’ person to be completely objective. We all have beliefs that may not be true. I believe that is why it is so important to share your views with others and admit you might be wrong. At least with a large group we have a better chance at being objective when it comes to observing what is truth or not.

    I’m not a scholar, but that’s the way I see it anywaze…

  56. on 15 Nov 2010 at 9:55 pmDoubting Thomas

    Robert,
    I just finished reading a great article from the link Xavier sent above in msg. #51. It’s called “Discernment: You and the Truth”. It’s the second from the top right under “Shema”.

    I was just thinking about what I was saying about “perception is reality”. Yeshua/Jesus couldn’t perform many miracles in his home town because the people there lacked in faith. So their perception (lack of faith) directly effected their reality (Yeshua/Jesus couldn’t perform man miracles).

    However when Yeshua/Jesus was around people who were strong in faith, he was able to perform many miracles. It seemed like the stronger the faith of the person the greater the miracle was. Like the centurion who’s faith was so strong Yeshua/Jesus was able to heal his servant that very moment, even though he was a great distance away from the servant.

    I’m also thinking about the many times Yeshua/Jesus said, “Your faith has healed you” or “Your faith is so strong let it be done for you as you desire.” It would seem that if our faith is strong enough it will effect our perception, then after that our reality.

    I know I’m not a teacher, but I’m just sharing some of my beliefs so I can listen to the feedback about what others might think…

  57. on 16 Nov 2010 at 8:54 amrobert

    “I know I’m not a teacher, but I’m just sharing some of my beliefs so I can listen to the feedback about what others might think… ”

    Thomas
    Yes I think the feedback is very necessary ,whether it makes sense out of something or challenges you to dig deeper to find the truth.
    In the last 2 years I had to totally shuck prior beliefs because none of them was supported by the greek and hebrew text and historical evidence.My current beliefs are subject to change if they can not be proven. This is my method.
    My faith is what provides the effort to do all this research

  58. on 16 Nov 2010 at 5:57 pmDoubting Thomas

    Robert,
    I’m thankful I have you and others on this site to bounce my ideas off of…

  59. on 16 Nov 2010 at 9:11 pmrobert

    Thomas
    I too am thankful.
    I have learned so much from and because of so many here.

  60. on 17 Nov 2010 at 4:11 pmAntioch

    Xavier – very good site, but I wouldn’t want to send a trinitarian there. The perspective often seems mocking and condescending, even though I agree with the arguments stated, I think it would tend to put the trinitarian on the defensive.

  61. on 17 Nov 2010 at 5:25 pmXavier

    Antioch

    The perspective often seems mocking and condescending…

    Really? What exactly did you find wrong with it?

  62. on 17 Nov 2010 at 8:44 pmAntioch

    As an example, the document titled ‘Suspicious Character of Trinitarian Claims’ is quite loaded just by its title. Again, I don’t disagree with the points and there is some great information on the site as a whole, but try to point a trinitarian to the site so that they might read about challenges to the doctrine and how do you think they will respond?

    Now if they are partisan trinitarians, it won’t matter. But my concern is for those that are open-minded and exploring for truth, they may be turned off when they see their current position is described as ‘resorting to the ridiculous’ or as a ‘comedy of errors’.

    Like it or not, the doctrine is mainstream. I don’t think minority positions gain traction by ridiculing the majority position. I think they should respectfully disagree and back up their position with facts and with questions to challenge the weaknesses in the majority position.

  63. on 17 Nov 2010 at 9:29 pmXavier

    Antioch

    …try to point a trinitarian to the site so that they might read about challenges to the doctrine and how do you think they will respond?

    If you know how to get trinis or any other ‘Christian’ onto biblical unitarian sites please let me know! 🙂

  64. on 17 Nov 2010 at 9:34 pmDoubting Thomas

    Antioch,
    You said, “I don’t think minority positions gain traction by ridiculing the majority position.”

    I agree. I used to use sarcasm quite often, until Sean on this site pointed out to me that this was unchristian behavior. Looking back on it I realized how ineffective it was in changing the other person’s position. The person being sarcastic might feel good about himself, but it has a negative effect on the other person. The bible talks about being humble and reverent when defending our beliefs.

    I find myself being irreverent at times, as I’m sure many others do as well. It’s sometimes difficult to be critical and at the same time be reverent. I guess it just takes patience and practice…

  65. on 17 Nov 2010 at 10:43 pmXavier

    DT

    It’s sometimes difficult to be critical and at the same time be reverent. I guess it just takes patience and practice…

    How do we teach people who otherwise, by nature, do not like to be taught?

  66. on 18 Nov 2010 at 12:26 amDoubting Thomas

    Xavier,
    I honestly don’t know. I’m just learning all these things myself…

  67. on 18 Nov 2010 at 7:21 pmAntioch

    Xavier – I don’t know how to get them to seek such sites. The good/bad with the trinity is that it rarely ever comes up in discussions or as part of church life. While it saddens me that the doctrine has had such sway for so long, it doesn’t seem to be keeping people from being baptized by the holy spirit and obviously God has put up with it all this time.

  68. on 18 Nov 2010 at 10:00 pmDoubting Thomas

    Antioch,
    You said, “I don’t know how to get them to seek such sites.”

    The way I see it most people are usually happy with the Status Quo until a problem comes up. It seems to me that the vast majority of Trinitarians don’t even give a second thought to the “Trinity doctrine” and most probably couldn’t even explain it (in detail) to you. They just generally know about it. I know I never gave any serious thought to it when I was a young boy going to church.

    You also said, “it doesn’t seem to be keeping people from being baptized by the holy spirit and obviously God has put up with it all this time.”

    Takacs Janos gave an interesting quote in another thread “20 Reasons Why the Trinity is Unbiblical (16)” in Msg. #3 he gives a link to a brother Raymond Franz who says, “God needs no particular person, church, denomination, creed or organization to accomplish his purpose. He will make use of those, in all their diversity, who are ready to be used, but will leave to themselves those that labor for their own ends.”

    I really like that quote. I also believe that God is not as interested in doctrine as most people think he is. I believe he is more interested in how we treat each other. Of course this is just my own humble opinion…

  69. on 01 Dec 2010 at 8:15 amTakacs Janos

    Dear “Doubting Thomas”,
    You wrote:
    “I also believe that God is not as interested in doctrine as most people think he is.”
    Exist good doctrines and bad doctrines.
    So, I think he is interested, because what it is written in Revelation 22:14,15?
    If you read it and believed it, is your problem, not mine, but booth will see in “that day”.
    Best regards,
    Your friend, Janos, RO

  70. on 02 Dec 2010 at 7:49 amDoubting Thomas

    Takacs Janos,
    I believe the most important part of the bible is the teachings of Yeshua. Almost everything else is commentary. If we follow the teachings of Yeshua, and apply them in our life as best we can, then God/Yahweh will be pleased with us. If we don’t he won’t. I really believe it is that simple.

    From what I can see, all of the doctrinal arguments between people involve things that are outside of Yeshua’s teachings. Like I said above, “I believe God is not as interested in doctrine as most people think he is. I believe he is more interested in how we treat each other.” Doctrine is, at the most, a secondary issue.

    At least that’s the way I see it anywaze…

  71. on 02 Dec 2010 at 10:31 amSean

    DT,

    But, how we treat each other is a doctrine, no? I am weary of the tendency in our time to chuck doctrine (=teaching) for emotion or minimalist ethics. This blog, in some ways is an experiment in doing doctrine in community as Christians. It is a rare things to be able to argue in a life-giving way rather than destructively.

  72. on 02 Dec 2010 at 11:34 amrobert

    Sean
    Trying to say that how we treat each other is a doctrine ignores the fact that other groups possess these qualities without any christian doctrine. If someone was to ask me if Christianity was the largest group that followed the ways Jesus set out in Christianity I would have to answer No because amongst the other religions I find they follow morals very similar to that of Jesus. I find this amongst Atheists,Muslims,Buddhist and many more groups. This leads me to believe that the treatment of others comes from within , not doctrines and this is what Salvation will be judged on.

  73. on 02 Dec 2010 at 6:10 pmXavier

    Sean

    chuck doctrine

    Good one. 😛

  74. on 02 Dec 2010 at 6:33 pmDoubting Thomas

    Sean,
    You said, “I am weary of the tendency in our time to chuck doctrine (=teaching) for emotion or minimalist ethics.”

    What I mean by doctrine is that some Christians say you can’t attain salvation without being born again or others say you must speak in tongues. The RC church has a whole list of doctrines that you must believe in order to attain salvation. I understand there are even some that say you must recognize Yeshua as being the archangel Michael. I personally don’t believe that God/Yahweh is going to base salvation on any of these things.

    Yeshua gives us a summary of what God expects from us in Mathew 25:31-46. This basically sums up his teachings, “(35)For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, (36) I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.”

    It seems to me that we shouldn’t forget that these are the things that are important to God/Yahweh. Certainly it’s worthy to study the scriptures and learn as much truth as we can, but this study will do us no good if we forget the basics. I think we as humans tend to fixate on our differences instead of looking at what we have in common.

    I believe that all Christians (regardless of their background) share a basic understanding of Yeshua’s teachings. Whether we try our best to be like the person who built their house on rock, and put these teachings into practice is another story. I am just a new Christian (about 12 years or so), so I don’t try to teach anybody anything.

    I still have much to learn, but it seems to me that some people just seem to put too much emphasis on doctrines. In my opinion this can cause unnecessary divisions among the body of Christ (that don’t really need to be there). Yeshua says we should love our enemies, but some people despise their fellow Christians just because their beliefs are slightly different.

    This just doesn’t seem like proper Christian behavior to me…

  75. on 02 Dec 2010 at 8:55 pmSean

    DT,

    I don’t think we can reduce salvation to one parable in Mat. 25. Of course we are to live out our teaching (doctrine) as well. Jesus was called a rabbi (teacher) and he had much to say about salvation beyond caring for the poor. If I had to put my ethical steak in the ground somewhere in Mat., I would opt for chs. 5-7.

    grace & peace

  76. on 02 Dec 2010 at 9:38 pmDoubting Thomas

    Sean,
    I just read Mathew chapters 5-7. Mathew does summarize all of Yeshua’s/Jesus’ teachings nicely into these chapters. The only point I was trying to make is that it seems to me that Yeshua was sent to teach us how God wants us to behave. He is our teacher. All the doctrinal arguments about how and when to baptize, the Trinity, pre-existence, etc… should take a back seat to the teachings of Yeshua.

    Maybe I’m simple minded, but I think if we concentrate on following the teachings of Yeshua, then God/Yahweh will be pleased with us. I’m not trying to be argumentative, I’m just trying to share my perspective. May the grace, peace and wisdom of God be with you and with us all…

  77. on 03 Dec 2010 at 4:15 amAntioch

    I agree with you DT. The Christians that impressed me most before I became one were those who acted with kindness and joy as opposed to demonstrating biblical and doctrinal knowledge. Now that I am a Christian, my opinion hasn’t changed.

  78. on 03 Dec 2010 at 7:36 amXavier

    DT

    All the doctrinal arguments about how and when to baptize, the Trinity, pre-existence, etc… should take a back seat to the teachings of Yeshua.

    Its all doctrine starting with the greatest command of the Shema in Mar 12.29 to the way to obtain eternal life in John 17.3.

    Antioch

    The Christians that impressed me most before I became one were those who acted with kindness and joy as opposed to demonstrating biblical and doctrinal knowledge.

    Would you say that the Mormons are the ones who best exemplify those qualities you point to here?

  79. on 03 Dec 2010 at 9:56 amSean

    DT,

    My concern is the constant splitting of doctrine and practice. This is a fairly recent phenomenon which devalues truth. I fear that throwing out doctrine will eventually degenerate into just mushy spirituality where everyone’s ‘truth’ is equally valid and we are all discouraged from using our God-given minds to seek truth. Doctrine does matter, and not just doctrine about how to live. I’m saying both are important. For example, nine times in Jesus’ sermon on ethics he mentions the kingdom of God. Thus inderstanding the kingdom is central, at least for Jesus–our Rabbi, for living rightly. We are to love God with everything, including all our minds.

  80. on 03 Dec 2010 at 11:49 amrobert

    Sean
    I guess the main problem I have with your view is that it turns Grace into a works based salvation which contrary to the teachings of the apostles.
    There was only one promise that has a works based requirement which is the promise of entering God’s rest in which disobedience is the main reason for not entering it. This disobedience is caused by lack of faith that there still remains the Promise of entering that Rest. It seems that those that were preached this Gospel thought this Rest had already came and went because several verses in Joshua were changed to make the Israelites believe it already came. Hebrews 3&4 deals with this Lie and states IF Joshua Had given them REST he wouldnt of spoken of another period.
    My guess is the writer of Hebrews wrote after the fall of the temple and was adddresing how those of the Old covenant were to continue in that covenant when several things required in it were no longer available. The writer addresses these issues for those of the Old covenant Hebrew FAITH thru out Hebrews.
    So please dont mix doctrines of promise of Gods rest with the GIFT of Grace because Grace is Grace and dont take away from the promise of Gods rest by applying Grace to take away the requirements of that promise.

  81. on 03 Dec 2010 at 1:11 pmAntioch

    Sean,

    You ask “Would you say that the Mormons are the ones who best exemplify those qualities you point to here?”

    I think your point is that something is amiss when someone exhibits kindness and joy but has incorrect doctrine. What about trinitarians? Incorrect doctrine, but I know many that to me seem spirit driven.

    I keep going back to Acts 10 when Peter sees the gentiles receive the holy spirit just as the jews had. That was a tough thing to swallow but I agree with his conclusion in Acts 11:17 – “So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”

    I don’t want you to think that I am concluding that bible study or doctrinal discussion is irrelevant. I just have a hard time thinking that this person is condemned or that person is condemned because they have incorrect doctrine. What Acts 10 teaches me is that our brothers and sisters in Christ are those that have received the holy spirit and I try to look at the fruits of that spirit as evidence of it acting within them. That trumps their doctrinal beliefs.

    So if it is possible that a mormon has received the spirit, that really makes me wonder if debating the differences between mormons and ‘true’ christians is of any value other than intellectual candy for us humans to quibble about. I’m not a universalist – I don’t know how it would be possible to be in God’s kingdom without acknowleding Christ and repenting. But in the end, its whoever God chooses to be in the kingdom. I think we fail miserably as humans when we try to define His criteria.

  82. on 03 Dec 2010 at 2:21 pmSean

    Antioch,

    I believe your comments are directed to Xavier, right?

    Still, I think we can agree that worshiping the correct God is important (cp. the prophets who railed against idolatry) and that getting the gospel right is immanently important (cp. Paul who says believing the gospel results salvation). Again, I am not, nor will I ever, discount ethics, which are extremely important. I’m just trying to stave off the overwhelming post-modern notion that has invaded Christianity that truth is relative and that being nice to people is the premier ethical principal. These are subtle lies…all the good lies have some truth in them, right?

    DT,

    Have you had a chance to listen to my podcast with R. Wilkinson called “Why Truth Matters”?

  83. on 03 Dec 2010 at 6:13 pmDoubting Thomas

    Xavier,
    You said, “Its all doctrine starting with the greatest command of the Shema in Mar 12.29 to the way to obtain eternal life in John 17.3.”

    I see what you mean that there are a lot of basic doctrines that I just take for granted. I do try to follow the Shema as best I can. I just get frustrated when I’m talking to a Christian that says you must be baptized a certain (specific) way to attain salvation, or insists that you must believe what they believe in order to attain salvation.

    I guess I’m more of a live and let live sort of person. Some people seem to become obsessed with one doctrine or another and then they look down on others that disagree with them. I’m just a layman, but this seems to contradict the basic teachings of Yeshua.

    Sean,
    I will listen to your podcast and then reread your messages above before answering. I’m trying to understand what you mean by, “My concern is the constant splitting of doctrine and practice.” I didn’t mean to be splitting anything. I just don’t believe God is going to condemn anyone just for holding a false doctrine (or belief).

    I think God/Yahweh will take into consideration ALL our human limitations…

  84. on 03 Dec 2010 at 6:32 pmSean

    DT,

    I think you make a good point to distinguish between essential doctrines and nonessential ones, and I likewise am repelled by that narrow-minded mentality you described. However, beliefs do matter. Perhaps an example can serve to illustrate this point. I used to believe that salvation could not be lost and that when God looked at me he saw Christ’s righteousness. As a teenager, growing up, I reasoned this through and concluded that since no matter what I was right with God, I could freely (and without the slightest hint of guilt) pursue an entirely narcissistic lifestyle. Specifically because of this doctrine I lived as a hedonist. I would not have done so if I had believed otherwise. Thus, a belief–and one that many consider non-essential–directly impacted my behavior such that if Christ had returned when I was 18, I would have been lost forever.

  85. on 03 Dec 2010 at 7:50 pmDoubting Thomas

    Sean,
    You said, “I fear that throwing out doctrine will eventually degenerate into just mushy spirituality where everyone’s ‘truth’ is equally valid and we are all discouraged from using our God-given minds to seek truth. Doctrine does matter, and not just doctrine about how to live.”

    I see what you mean. I guess it’s a fine balance between respecting different people’s beliefs and saying they are all equally valid (of course they can’t all be valid). I do respect people that are confident in their beliefs (faith is a powerful thing). I am confident in some things and in other things I am not. I realize I have much to learn and pray that God will continue to guide me.

    You also said, “Thus, a belief–and one that many consider non-essential–directly impacted my behavior such that if Christ had returned when I was 18, I would have been lost forever.”

    False beliefs can certainly lead to unexpected problems. I see what you mean that knowing the truth can set you free (from your podcast). I still think that God/Yahweh is more interested in our behavior though.

    James 2:19-24 (English Standard Version)

    “(19) You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! (20) Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? (21) Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? (22) You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; (23) and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. (24) You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

    So you can see why I believe we need more than just having the correct doctrine. Like I said, doctrine seems to be secondary to our behavior. Personally, I try not to judge a person by what they say alone. I try to look at their behavior. To me actions speak louder than words.

    I just think some people put too much emphasis on our differences. The way I see it, God made us all different. There must be a reason for it…

  86. on 03 Dec 2010 at 8:13 pmMark C.

    Thomas,

    Why does one have to be second? I don’t know of anywhere in the Bible that says God is more interested in our behavior than our beliefs, nor is there anywhere that says He is more interested in our beliefs/doctrines/faith than He is in our behavior. The Bible warns against faith without works, and against works without faith. The two go hand in hand.

  87. on 03 Dec 2010 at 8:38 pmrobert

    Mark
    I think these 2 verses show that Jesus was more interested in works than doctrines or else he would of said sin no more and ALSO learn sound doctrine. Yes Faith is profitable in helping us sin no more but it can be done without faith unless you feel only christians do good works.

    John 5:14
    Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.

    John 8:11
    She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

  88. on 03 Dec 2010 at 8:53 pmDoubting Thomas

    Mark C,
    You said, “Why does one have to be second?”

    You are of course correct that this is just my own personal interpretation. I could be wrong. I think it might be wise for me to think and pray about this, and look over what was said above in the morning, after I have given it some thought and reflection. May the peace and love of God be with you, and with us all…

  89. on 03 Dec 2010 at 9:27 pmSean

    DT,

    I agree with what you said and think that behavior is just as important as belief, since the two really cannot be separated. Grace and peace to you, as well.

    Robert,

    Just as a side note, John 8.1-11 is not in the earliest and best Greek manuscripts and should not be in our English Bibles. See footnote in NASB, NET, NAB, NIV, etc.

  90. on 03 Dec 2010 at 9:36 pmrobert

    Sean
    thank you for info.
    I am not even sure Johns gospel is authenic but for sure you believe it is.
    So take away the verse you chose is a corruption but deal with the other verse you feel is authenic.

  91. on 04 Dec 2010 at 10:08 amDoubting Thomas

    Mark C./Sean,
    I have read over the above postings, and was struck but what Antioch wrote in msg. #81 where he said, “I keep going back to Acts 10 when Peter sees the gentiles receive the holy spirit just as the Jews had. That was a tough thing to swallow but I agree with his conclusion in Acts 11:17 – “So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”

    The centurion and his family knew very little about doctrine, but God was impressed with their behavior. Acts 10:2 says he was “a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God.” So it was his behavior not his doctrine that made such a good impression on God/Yahweh that he sent Peter and the Holy Spirit to him and his family.

    Then Peter says in Acts 10:34-35, “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, (35) but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.” It clearly says, if you do what is right then you are acceptable to him. This story clearly demonstrates that behavior is more important in the eyes of God then doctrine.

    It was only after they had received the Holy Spirit that Peter spent 3 days with them teaching them the necessary doctrines. So the doctrines were secondary after the devout behavior, fearing God, giving alms generously, and continually praying to God, which resulted in the Holy Spirit being sent to them.

    Again, I’m not trying to be argumentative. This is just the way I see it…

  92. on 04 Dec 2010 at 1:58 pmPat

    Interesting postings. IMO, when doctrinal truth is taught, because God made truth simple to understand, there’s an expectation for people who’ve heard it to come around to it. ( Obviously, there are reasons that people do not immediately jump on it, perhaps due to spiritual blindness which could impede their ability to understand, and certainly God is aware of these things).

    I believe it is incumbent upon all of us who have learned simple doctrinal truths to be sober, aware, and prayerful toward those with whom we have shared it.

    In I Corinthians 15, Paul uses language charged with emotional reproof to this church because some of them had veered away from the simple truth of Resurrection. My personal belief is that the practical error that proceeds from this is like “the King of Leaven” (or Queen, next to the trinity) and may very well been the (overall) root cause of the divisive and immature behavior that plagued this church from chapters 2-14). When Paul was on trial Acts 23, he said in verse 1: “Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.” Then, after being slapped in the face for saying this, he perceived that there was an element of Sadduceeism in his midst. What’s so remarkable about this record is that Pharisees and Sadducees couldn’t stage a united front against Paul. Disagreement on Resurrection had derailed their cause, and Paul got released. There’s a correllary with The Church. “Reprove, rebuke, and exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” is vital practice in its fulfilling its mission. Where this is lacking, Satan gets a “get out of jail free card”.

  93. on 04 Dec 2010 at 4:22 pmMark C.

    Thomas,

    In Acts 10, the men tell Peter that Cornelius was divinely directed to send for him, to hear a message from him. His household was acceptable, but there was more for him to learn. This, in context, shows that both doctrine and behavior are important to God. Peter went there and preached to them the message that Jesus was the promised Messiah and was raised from the dead.

    42 “And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead.
    43 “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”

    This is the doctrine that is essential to believe, which is why we are called to preach it. Then notice it was “While Peter was still speaking these words” that “the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message” (v. 44).

    Throughout the New Testament, it is the Gospel Message that is central and crucial. This message – that Jesus is the promised Messiah, anointed to be the coming king and judge, and that he died for our sins and was raised from the dead – is the starting point for receiving eternal life. People are called to repent and believe this message, and then live their lives accordingly. Truly believing it in one’s heart will result in changed behavior, whereas confessing belief without change in behavior is not sufficient, just as outwardly changing behavior without believing the Gospel is not sufficient. Both are important to God.

  94. on 04 Dec 2010 at 4:53 pmrobert

    “In Acts 10, the men tell Peter that Cornelius was divinely directed to send for him, to hear a message from him. His household was acceptable, but there was more for him to learn. This, in context, shows that both doctrine and behavior are important to God. Peter went there and preached to them the message that Jesus was the promised Messiah and was raised from the dead.”

    Mark
    The difficulty your having is because You lump all God’s promises to Abraham into ONE promise.
    Yes Both doctrine and behavior are important to God But to what promises are they important. God’s Laws and signs have the most importantance but yet we find they are not what salvation is based on. Grace is the most special promise because it is not limited to just those of the Renewed Covenant which enter God’s rest by the law and Salvation through Grace afterwards. By Jesus’ perfection all mankind gets to be judged by their behavior not Adams.Yes the gospels(which was preached long before Jesus) needs to be preached and is open to anyone who wants to take hold of it but the real GOOD NEWS is if you fail Grace is Always there.

  95. on 04 Dec 2010 at 5:23 pmXavier

    Antioch

    What about trinitarians? Incorrect doctrine, but I know many that to me seem spirit driven.

    According to the NT to be “spirit driven” involves an understanding and acceptance of “the gospel” message. People were included in Christ when they heard the word of truth, “the gospel of your salvation” [i.e. Kingdom of God, Mar 1.14-15; cp. Mat 5-7].

    When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised holy spirit, that is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory. Eph 1.13-14

    DT

    I guess I’m more of a live and let live sort of person. Some people seem to become obsessed with one doctrine or another and then they look down on others that disagree with them.

    Christ and his Apostles would certainly have fitted this bill don’t you think?

  96. on 05 Dec 2010 at 1:36 amDoubting Thomas

    Mark C.
    You make some good points and I can see why you would believe that both are equally important. But, I’m just not so sure that they are indeed equal. I think of the story Yeshua told in Luke 4:25-27 where he says,

    “But in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heavens were shut up three years and six months, and a great famine came over all the land, (26) and Elijah was sent to none of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. (27) And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian.”

    If doctrine were just as important as behavior, then why was Elijah and Elisha not sent to the Jewish people that possessed the correct doctrine. Instead God/Yahweh sent Elijah to a widow in the land of Sidon, and Elisha to a leper who was a Syrian. There must have been some reason that God picked these people over the people who were believing the right doctrine at that time (the Jewish people).

    There is only one possible explanation (that I can see) and that is that these non-Jews were worthy because they were doing right in the eyes of God/Yahweh, and were therefore acceptable to Him. Where the Jewish people, even though they possessed the correct doctrine, were not doing right in the eyes of God, and were therefore not acceptable to Him.

    At least that’s the way I see it anywaze…

    Xavier,
    You said, “Christ and his Apostles would certainly have fitted this bill don’t you think?”

    I don’t think that Christ and the Apostles would have been looking down on anyone. I believe they would have been reverent of other people beliefs, but firm in their conviction and teachings. Personally I find it very difficult to be reverent of someone’s beliefs, while at the same time criticizing it. But doing the right thing is often a very difficult thing to do.

    It is easy to be irreverent and insulting when criticizing someone that you disagree with. It is difficult (and takes much practice) to be humble and reverent, and at the same time be able to criticize and point out the fault in someone’s beliefs. I myself have a long way to go in mastering this fine balance between being respectful and yet critical while also not being offensive…

  97. on 05 Dec 2010 at 8:51 amXavier

    DT

    It is easy to be irreverent and insulting when criticizing someone that you disagree with.

    Yes. I am not saying that Christ and the Apostles were willfully being “irreverent and insulting”. But compare these sayings to see what I mean.

    Snakes! Sons of vipers! How will you escape the judgment of hell?

    You brood of snakes! How could evil men like you speak what is good and right?

    though you are evil [you] know how to give good gifts to your children… Mat 3.7; 7.11; 12.34; 23.33

    There is no other way people’s perception of them might not have been otherwise.

  98. on 05 Dec 2010 at 9:53 amSean

    DT,

    You make some good points in your recent examples. Still, behavior is based in doctrine (specifically the doctrine we call ethics). So, these pious outsiders were behaving according to their doctrine/teaching that they believed. That they were chosen reflects God’s grace not so much their own merit. Besides, if we separated behavior from belief then the result is a madman who is not in control of his own actions.

    Secondly, we need to be careful not to use Scripture against itself. The narratives about Elijah’s widow and Naaman are there to teach us something about how God cares about those even outside the community of faith. However, we cannot and should not use these accounts to dismiss other clear statements in Scripture about the importance of believing/worshiping only YHWH as God, or in believing/living out the gospel of the kingdom. God does indeed care for outsiders but we should not therefore conclude that every pious idolater will be saved, because that would make Jesus a liar. If someone really desires to know God, will he not send him or her someone to share the truth?

  99. on 05 Dec 2010 at 10:11 amXavier

    Its funny how certain people on here seem to be throwing around the word “doctrine” like its bad or apart from “ethics/morals”. Yet, whilst at the same time, isn’t it “doctrine” what we ourselves set out? Whether we believe only piousness is important over and above “teaching”?

    Sean

    If someone really desires to know God, will he not send him or her someone to share the truth?

    I think if God is just He will. If not, then obviously He will judge those people accordingly.

    But how can they call on him to save them unless they believe in him? And how can they believe in him if they have never heard about him? And how can they hear about him unless someone tells them? And how will anyone go and tell them without being sent? Rom 10.14-15

  100. on 05 Dec 2010 at 12:44 pmDoubting Thomas

    Xavier,
    Yeshua was in a unique position that God/Yahweh would talk directly to him and tell him what he wanted him to do. I believe God told Yeshua that he was very angry with the Pharisees and Sadduces, and told him to say these things. We, however, cannot be sure that God is angry at someone or not. We might think he is, but we can’t be sure.

    It’s like Antioch said above in msg. #81, “But in the end, its whoever God chooses to be in the kingdom. I think we fail miserably as humans when we try to define His criteria.”

    I’m not sure if you and I, Mark and Sean, are that far apart on our beliefs. I’m not saying doctrine is bad, or that it is unimportant. I’m just saying that I don’t believe God/Yahweh is as interested in doctrine as most people seem to think. Paul talks about Gentiles who are ignorant of the correct doctrine but are acceptable to God because they have the law written in their hearts.

    Romans 2:14-16 (English Standard Version)

    (14) For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. (15) They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them (16) on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.”

    Sean,
    You said, “So, these pious outsiders were behaving according to their doctrine/teaching that they believed.”

    I agree. Even though they were technically ignorant of the law (doctrine), they had the “law written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness.” All people have beliefs (ethics) that guide them, whether they be criminals or saints. These beliefs or ethics are just different between different people.

    Only God/Yahweh (and possibly Yeshua) can see into our hearts and truly know us. Like I said to Xavier, “I’m not saying doctrine is bad, or that it is unimportant. I’m just saying that I don’t believe God/Yahweh is as interested in doctrine as most people think.”

    From my experience many/most people seem to think that doctrine is more important than anything else. Hence they look down on people who’s doctrines are slightly different. I think this is a mistake. I believe that God looks beyond the various differences in doctrines, and is mainly interested in how we treat each other. After all Yeshua said that all the law and the prophets were based on the Shema. Mark 12:29-31.

    “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. (30) And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ (31) The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

    This talks about loving God and loving our neighbor. I believe that to condemn someone for doctrines outside of this is not a wise thing to do. I’m not saying it’s not good to study and learn the rest of what God is saying in his word. I’m just saying we shouldn’t be so quick to condemn people who’s belief’s might be different from ours.

    I believe God made us all different so that he could see how we would treat each other. Would it be with love, respect and kindness, or with contempt and hatred. At least this is the way I see it anywaze…

  101. on 05 Dec 2010 at 1:34 pmrobert

    “Its funny how certain people on here seem to be throwing around the word “doctrine” like its bad or apart from “ethics/morals”.”

    Xavier
    If thats what you see then you totally missed the context of this discussion.
    If christian doctrine is the only place that behavior comes from then one must explain how it is thru out history that groups of people possessed qualities very comparable to that of christians without ever hearing a single doctrine. This shows that behavior has a different source.
    There are groups today that have better behavior then that of the common christian.
    Plus you need to explain just why God chose Abraham.
    True doctrine was preached by Jesus and the Apostles to correct the false doctrines of 2nd temple judaism to graft those back into the Covenant and to offer the renewed Covenant to anyone that wanted to take hold of it. I find doctrines very very important to this promise but can not believe God will Judge the promise of Grace by doctrines when that would take away Grace to those from the beginning to the end who were not preached any doctrine and condemns all babies.

  102. on 05 Dec 2010 at 5:09 pmMark C.

    I’m not sure if you and I, Mark and Sean, are that far apart on our beliefs. I’m not saying doctrine is bad, or that it is unimportant. I’m just saying that I don’t believe God/Yahweh is as interested in doctrine as most people seem to think.

    I agree that doctrine isn’t as important to God as people think, if people think that doctrine is more important than behavior. This is a different point than saying doctrine is not as important to God as behavior.

    We can all point to Scriptures where it is shown that doctrine is not more important than behavior, as well as those which show that behavior is not more important than doctrine. I think it’s pretty clear, taking all Scriptures into consideration, that neither one is more important than the other. Especially since genuine behavior is based on a person’s beliefs. Not just Christian doctrine, but any belief of any doctrine, will ultimately affect one’s behavior (except madmen or hypocrites). The two were never considered separate in Biblical culture, and the idea of such a separation is a relatively recent phenomenon, as Sean pointed out above.

  103. on 05 Dec 2010 at 5:57 pmDoubting Thomas

    Mark,
    You said, “The two were never considered separate in Biblical culture, and the idea of such a separation is a relatively recent phenomenon, as Sean pointed out above.”

    I see what you mean. I didn’t realize that. I just look around and see that the R.C.’s say only they can attain salvation, because everyone else believes the wrong doctrines. The J.W.’s and the Christadelphians (not sure if I’m spelling that right) and other groups say the same thing. That’s what I’m speaking against. This idea that having and believing the correct doctrine is the be all and end all in regards to salvation, is simply wrong to me.

    I know that Biblical Unitarians don’t say that you must be a Biblical Unitarian to attain salvation, which is something that I highly respect and admdire. I think it’s important to study the word of God, and know the truth, as best we can. Like Sean said in his podcast, “The truth will set us free.” It is admirable to dedicate one’s life to search for the truth.

    I just think that some people become so obsessed with doctrines (for example: R.C.’s, J.W.’s, Christadelphians, etc..) that they forget the Golden Rule. (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you/Love your neighbor as yourself). I believe that to condemn other people because their doctrines or beliefs are slightly different then yours is wrong.

    Like I said, I don’t mean to be argumentative, that’s just the way I see it…

  104. on 05 Dec 2010 at 6:24 pmrobert

    “Especially since genuine behavior is based on a person’s beliefs.”

    Mark
    There is way too much written history for this statement to be true. Over the last 2 centuries we have discovered several native groups that never had contact with oustide world. These groups possessed very loving behavior within their own tribes but also welcomed the outsiders with love. This cant be said of all discoveries.
    The primitive tribes had no doctrines what so ever and treated each other with love from a basic instinc.
    Doctrines can be very profitable in helping with behavior but it is certainly not the source.

  105. on 05 Dec 2010 at 6:43 pmMark C.

    Robert,

    Primitive tribes still have beliefs. Doctrine simply means what is taught and believed. Like I said, “Not just Christian doctrine, but any belief of any doctrine, will ultimately affect one’s behavior.

  106. on 05 Dec 2010 at 6:59 pmrobert

    Mark
    And what is the source of that belief.
    COULD IT BE CONSCIENCE ????

  107. on 05 Dec 2010 at 7:37 pmXavier

    Antioch & DT

    “But in the end, its whoever God chooses to be in the kingdom. I think we fail miserably as humans when we try to define His criteria.”

    God has defined His criteria and have been commissioned to speak that truth [doctrine] in love! See 1Tim 6.

    robert

    how it is thru out history that groups of people possessed qualities very comparable to that of christians without ever hearing a single doctrine.

    Like I said God will deal with those who, for whatever reason, did not attain to the gospel message. But one thing is clear, “Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no wonder that his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness.” [2Cor 11.14-15]

  108. on 05 Dec 2010 at 7:58 pmrobert

    “Like I said God will deal with those who, for whatever reason, did not attain to the gospel message. But one thing is clear, “Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no wonder that his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness.” [2Cor 11.14-15] ”

    WHAT???

    Xavier
    Satan would use Doctrine, Not behavior.
    God will certainly not condemn those that NEVER received the Gospel!!!!!
    It would of been better for those to have never heard it , then for those that twist it.

  109. on 05 Dec 2010 at 8:07 pmMark C.

    Robert,

    First, you need to calm down. Your last few posts are starting to sound very angry. There is no need for this.

    Second, the source of beliefs, whether conscience or outside teaching, is beside the point. The point is simply that one’s beliefs and one’s actions go hand in hand, and one is not more important to God than the other. Why is this such a problem for you?

  110. on 05 Dec 2010 at 8:09 pmrobert

    Mark
    I am as calm as can be.
    Read Again

  111. on 05 Dec 2010 at 8:44 pmrobert

    “The point is simply that one’s beliefs and one’s actions go hand in hand, and one is not more important to God than the other. Why is this such a problem for you? ”

    Mark
    Because you are using this doctrine to condemn people that are better then both of us according to behavior that matches the teaching of Jesus.

  112. on 05 Dec 2010 at 8:47 pmMark C.

    Robert,

    First, on discussion boards, all capital letters and multiple question marks are usually considered to be the equivalent of shouting. If you are in fact calm, that’s good.

    Second, where am I using any doctrine to condemn anyone?

  113. on 05 Dec 2010 at 9:11 pmrobert

    Mark
    Ok then
    Can a lifelong atheist,muslim, etc achieve salvation if his behavior matches those set out by Jesus?

  114. on 05 Dec 2010 at 9:30 pmMark C.

    Can a lifelong atheist, muslim, etc achieve salvation if his behavior matches those set out by Jesus?

    No. Because his behavior without right doctrine is not sufficient. I said this several times already.

    You still haven’t answered, where am I using any doctrine to condemn anyone?

  115. on 05 Dec 2010 at 9:33 pmrobert

    “No. Because his behavior without right doctrine is not sufficient. I said this several times already.”

    Mark
    Then neither can Babies, Young children.
    I rest my case

  116. on 05 Dec 2010 at 10:17 pmMark C.

    Robert,

    Wasn’t your case that “Jesus was more interested in works than doctrines” (comment #87)? I already said that works without right doctrine is not sufficient. But I also said that right doctrine without corresponding works is not sufficient either. That is why I keep saying that both are equally important. I really don’t know why this seems to be so difficult for you.

    And you still haven’t answered, where am I using any doctrine to condemn anyone?

  117. on 05 Dec 2010 at 10:22 pmrobert

    Mark
    I dont know how to get you to see what you are saying, but even if I could you would only be one fish in the sea.
    Have a great night

  118. on 05 Dec 2010 at 10:35 pmMark C.

    Robert,

    I see what I’m saying. I just don’t see what you’re saying. You seemed to be arguing that works were more important to God and Jesus than doctrine. But then your later arguments (such as the question about atheists and Muslims) seemed to be saying the opposite. I really don’t know what your point is now.

  119. on 05 Dec 2010 at 11:15 pmDoubting Thomas

    Mark C.
    You said, ““No. Because his behavior without right doctrine is not sufficient. I said this several times already.”

    I believe Robert is saying that this doctrine, that you mention above, that you must also have correct doctrine to go with the righteous behavior in order to obtain salvation, condemns babies, young children, atheists, Muslims, Jews, Jewish Christians, R.C’s, J.W’s, Christedelphians, etc…

    Whereas Robert and I believe God will look beyond the incorrect doctrines, and look at the person’s heart, and how they lived their life. At least that’s what it appears to me he is saying anywaze. I can see that both sides have good points. I know the majority of Christians would agree with what Mark C. is saying, but I still believe God is merciful and compassionate enough to look beyond some incorrect doctrines that people might hold.

    I don’t understand, Why Yeshua would have spent all time giving us teachings and parables about how God wants us to behave, if behavior wasn’t what is ultimately important to God???

    If doctrines were the most important thing, wouldn’t that be reflected in his teachings and parables???

    None of Yeshua’s teaching seem to be connected with the doctrines that most modern Christians fight about. From what I can see, all Christians seem to accept his teachings, but we humans still manage to find other things (outside of his teachings), to fight with each other about…

  120. on 06 Dec 2010 at 5:27 amMark C.

    I believe Robert is saying that this doctrine, that you mention above, that you must also have correct doctrine to go with the righteous behavior in order to obtain salvation, condemns babies, young children, atheists, Muslims, Jews, Jewish Christians, R.C’s, J.W’s, Christedelphians, etc…

    You’re lumping several categories together there. First of all, babies and young children are not held accountable for either their faith or their behavior, since neither is developed yet. Second, does not the Bible say that atheists and God-rejectors will not be saved?

    Then when you get into Jews, Jewish Christians, R.C.’s, J.W.’s, Christadelphians, etc., it gets even harder to determine where one stands. The Bible is clear that accepting and confessing Jesus as Lord and believing the Gospel are the beginning of the salvation process.

    You asked, why would Jesus have spent all his time giving us teachings and parables about how God wants us to behave, if behavior wasn’t what is ultimately important to God? The fact is, his teachings and parables were not exclusively about behavior. Many of them dealt with understanding who he was, and the nature of the Kingdom of God. (For more on that, I recommend reading the Kingdom Come section on my website.)

    You asked, “If doctrines were the most important thing, wouldn’t that be reflected in his teachings and parables?” Again, I’m not saying doctrines are the most important thing, any more than I am saying that behavior is the most important thing. They are both important because they work together, one affecting the other. This is the point I’ve been trying to make.

  121. on 06 Dec 2010 at 6:38 amJaco

    Hello, everyone

    We’ve gone over this topic so many times already. And I think one point this is missed everytime is that God will be the Judge through Jesus the Messiah. As such, he will not judge those without knowledge as if they had knowledge. Those under the Law of Christ as if they were not under the Law of Christ. Hence the resurrection of both righteous and unrighteous (Acts 24:15).

    If belief in Christ amid falsehood is acceptable to God, then we should leave Muslims and Hare Krishna members alone. Both have very good standards of living (among some pretty bad ones), but diverse beliefs of Christ (which are unimportant if doctrine is not an issue). If conduct is of utmost importance, then we don’t need Divine revelation at all. An either-or argument brings one at a cul-de-sac.

    BOTH conduct and doctrine are important. It is God’s will that truth be sought (1 Tim. 2:3, 4). In “truth,” both mental (pertaining to the heart – Ps. 15:2) and operational truth (Ps. 15:3) are in view. An ignorant person will not serve with Christ in his temple. The righteous (by belief and conduct) will (Rev. 14:1-3). The ignorant will have to accept Christ in the Age to Come if the are to dwell under our leadership.

    Jaco

  122. on 06 Dec 2010 at 6:56 amXavier

    Jaco

    Your a voice of reason amid the chaos my friend. 🙂

  123. on 06 Dec 2010 at 10:48 amrobert

    “If conduct is of utmost importance, then we don’t need Divine revelation at all. An either-or argument brings one at a cul-de-sac.”

    Jaco
    The question I have then is instinctive behavior to love one another which we find in babies,young children of all religions, atheist ,the primitive natives of the past and current and most of the religions around the world not a Divine revelation or is it doctrine. I don’t know about anyone else but when I do something that hurts another person I get a pain in my chest and have from my earliest memories. Is this because my earthly parents put it there, was it something that came from Sunday school.
    I believe that conscience is a product of Divine revelation and is something that has existed in mankind from the beginning.
    If the Christian doctrine is the only way to receive salvation then the work that Jesus did on the tree was incomplete because it left out those from the beginning who behavior matches that that Jesus taught.
    This also removes Abraham from the promise but then yet he rejoiced to see Jesus’ work on the tree. His resurrection into the promised land was always secure by his faith and works but that wasn’t eternal salvation. That just meant God had to resurrect him for one day to fulfill the promise.
    If Abraham could chose only one would he chose the one he secured or the one Jesus secured.

  124. on 06 Dec 2010 at 5:11 pmMark C.

    Robert,

    This instinctive conscience you speak of is not necessarily universal. Not all children instinctively love one another – often they are selfish and need to be taught to be considerate of others. And there are probably as many primitive natives who are not so loving, such as those that practice cannibalism and know no other way of life.

    Even among people who do have a knowledge of right and wrong, there is no guarantee that they will always do what’s right. Paul speaks of this at length in Romans:
    Rom. 3:10 As it is written: “There is no one who is righteous, not even one.”
    Rom. 7:18-19 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.

    There are even those who genuinely believe they are doing right but are not.
    Prov. 16:25 There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.
    Jer 17:9 The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?)

    The fact is, no matter how hard we try to be good, we can never be righteous enough for God’s standard. But He is merciful enough to understand that, and thus provided a way for us.

    If the Christian doctrine is the only way to receive salvation then the work that Jesus did on the tree was incomplete because it left out those from the beginning who behavior matches that that Jesus taught.

    On the contrary, one of the main Christian doctrines is that what Jesus did on the tree was necessary because we cannot be good enough to deserve salvation. This is also built on the foundation of who Jesus is, and what he came to make available.

    This also removes Abraham from the promise but then yet he rejoiced to see Jesus’ work on the tree. His resurrection into the promised land was always secure by his faith and works…

    It doesn’t remove Abraham from the promise, because – as you said – the promise was secure by his faith and works. Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:3; Gal. 3:6; James 2:23). Since he believed God, he obeyed him and left his homeland, traveling to a land he knew nothing about. But he never inherited that land – the inheritance is still future, but it will be forever.

    …but that wasn’t eternal salvation. That just meant God had to resurrect him for one day to fulfill the promise.

    I’m not sure where you get this from. The promise was that he and his descendants would possess and live in the land forever.

    If Abraham could chose only one would he chose the one he secured or the one Jesus secured.

    This is what’s known as a false dichotomy. There is no reason he would have to choose one or the other, as the two are not separated or mutually exclusive. He believed and obeyed. Period. It’s that simple.

  125. on 06 Dec 2010 at 5:35 pmAntioch

    Jaco – in post 120 “he will not judge those without knowledge as if they had knowledge”. Do you have a bible verse to support this? I want to believe this but I have not come across this in my reading yet.

    Robert – in post 105: you bring up conscience. This is an open question I am wrestling. Do we have our own conscience or is it *always* the voice of God that we hear/feel (imprinted on our hearts as said in Romans)?

  126. on 06 Dec 2010 at 5:55 pmrobert

    Mark
    Freewill was the first thing that opposed conscience and from that freewill doctrines were formed. Doctrines are the greatest suppressors of a persons conscience as we see in Seans story, I would like to know if at any time during that if his conscience made him feel guilty but was able to overpower it with the doctrine that allowed him to possess that behavior.
    But my question was really to Jaco because I have seen him set aside beliefs to reprove his belief.
    Your response I could of wrote myself from your position on this subject.
    I would accept it if I could make sense out it using the knowledge I have aquired from my own proving and reproving , But I cant.

  127. on 06 Dec 2010 at 6:40 pmrobert

    Robert – in post 105: you bring up conscience. This is an open question I am wrestling. Do we have our own conscience or is it *always* the voice of God that we hear/feel (imprinted on our hearts as said in Romans)?

    Antioch
    Yes I believe our conscience is our instinc on how to be person the creator wants us to be.
    This is comparable to the instinc of animals in how a dog know how to be dog without being taught. We can look at doctrines as dog trainers that teach dogs thing beyond that, sometimes things against their instinctive nature.
    I believe we receive our conscience with the breath of life as a Divine revelation from our creator to guide us in a world full of people and other beings like animals.
    I even feel guilty when I hurt an animal without a purpose .
    I am a deer hunter who hunts for meat not sport, in times past I have wounded a deer and was not able to track it. I have spent all night and next day searching for it and when i couldnt find it my guilt was so heavy I almost swore off hunting even though I know they are meat for mankind.I just have a hard time with wasting anything, everything about my life has to have a purpose and also make sense.
    I am not sure if whats in Romans is just conscience or an upgraded Divine revelation from God.

  128. on 06 Dec 2010 at 6:53 pmMark C.

    Your response I could of wrote myself from your position on this subject.
    I would accept it if I could make sense out it using the knowledge I have aquired from my own proving and reproving , But I cant.

    What does that even mean? When you say you can’t make sense of it, are you saying that you don’t understand what I said? If so, tell me what part you do not understand, and I will try to clarify. Or are you saying that you understand it but disagree with it? If so, share your Scriptural proof, and also respond to the specific points I made.

  129. on 06 Dec 2010 at 7:03 pmDoubting Thomas

    Mark C.
    You said, “Then when you get into Jews, Jewish Christians, R.C.’s, J.W.’s, Christadelphians, etc., it gets even harder to determine where one stands. The Bible is clear that accepting and confessing Jesus as Lord and believing the Gospel are the beginning of the salvation process.”

    That’s what I don’t understand. How do we know which doctrines are important (salvation related) and which aren’t???

    From what I understand, the Christadelphians say that if you believe in Satan then you can’t attain salvation, because your believing in more then one God. The J.W.’s say you must use Yahweh’s (or Jahovah’s) name and believe that Yeshua was the archangel Michael to attain salvation. The R.C.’s not only have a whole list of doctrines that you must believe, but in addition to that they have a whole bunch of sacraments, many of which you must regularly participate in to attain salvation. The baptists say you must be baptized a certain way. Other fundamentalist Christians say you must be born again etc…

    Who gets to decide??? The way I see it, if Yeshua didn’t teach any of these above mentioned doctrines, which different people say are essential to salvation, then it logically follows that it is should not therefore be necessary for salvation. If it was necessary (salvation related) then Yeshua would have given us teachings telling us this. He would have made it clear to us that it was necessary.

    I believe that if we follow all the teachings and parables that Yeshua instructed us to follow, we will do well.

    Jaco,
    You said, “We’ve gone over this topic so many times already.”

    You are right. It does seem like both sides are just repeating themselves at this point. I realized a long time ago now that my view is not held by most Christians. Most Christians will say that you must believe certain doctrines to attain salvation (even though they can’t agree with each other what those doctrines might be).

    I think it might be best if I just agree to disagree and remove myself from this discussion at this point. There really is nothing more for me to add to what I have already said.

    Sean/Xavier/Mark C./Jaco/Robert/Antioch and everybody else.

    Thank you for sharing and may the peace of God be with you, and with us all…

  130. on 06 Dec 2010 at 9:57 pmMark C.

    Thomas,

    You’re right. Those groups teach that if you don’t hold to all their doctrines you can’t be saved. But as far as I know, the only doctrine that the Bible says you must believe to be saved is the basic Gospel of Christ. But many Christians don’t even agree on what that entails, and – as you say – who gets to decide? Can we as Unitarians say that Trinitarians are not saved? (Sadly, there are some that do say that!) I think there are a few basics that are clearly defined in the Bible, and that God wants us to know the truth. But I would rather let Him judge who is saved and who isn’t. Yet that doesn’t mean doctrine is less important. It’s just that love covers a multitude of sins.

    BTW, if you’re wondering why there is so much confusion about what should be a simple thing – remember that the god of this world (Satan) is the author of confusion and his primary goal is to keep people from knowing and believing the truth. I look forward to the day when he is bound and no longer deceiving the nations (and even more to the day when he is finally destroyed). I think the truth will be so simple and obvious then that people will wonder what all the fuss was about.

  131. on 06 Dec 2010 at 11:02 pmDoubting Thomas

    Mark C.
    I would like to say a huge ‘AMEN’ to that…

  132. on 07 Dec 2010 at 4:20 amJaco

    Conscience cannot be regarded as Divine revelation per se. It could support Divine revelation, but not the other way around, as one person’s conscience could approve of something while another person’s conscience condemns it. Had it been so that all we needed were a created, instinctive conscience, we would not have been given purposeful Divine interventions in the past (esp. the Exodus and Jesus appearance) where God imposed truly indisputable values upon the lives of people. These values had to be internalised from the outside, since the conscience by design is mouldable – even subject to moral corruption.

    Romans 1:32: “Although these know full well the righteous decree of God, that those practicing such things are deserving of death, they not only keep on doing them but also consent with those practicing them.”

    2 Corinthians 11:3: “But I am afraid that somehow, as the serpent seduced Eve by its cunning, you minds might be corrupted away from the sincerity and the chastity that are due the Christ”

    2 Corinthians 11:20: “In fact, you put up with whoever enslaves you, whoever devours [what you have], whoever grabs [what you have], whoever exalts himself over [you], whoever strikes you in the face. ”

    The whole Genesis drama confirms this, namely, that we need the Designer’s directions and laws to know what is true and to accurately guide our step. Else we set up our own standards for right and wrong, inevitably resulting in death:

    Jeremiah 10:23: “I well know, O YHWH, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.”

    Then there is also the danger of establishing one’s own righteousness. In this case knowledge is required to rectify one’s course:

    Romans 10:2, 3: “For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God; but not according to accurate knowledge; for, because of not knowing the righteousness of God but seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.”

    Antioch, the answer to your question:

    Romans 2:12: “For instance, all those who sinned without law will also perish without law; but all those who sinned under law will be judged by law.”

    Romans 3:19: “Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.”

    Robert,

    If the Christian doctrine is the only way to receive salvation then the work that Jesus did on the tree was incomplete because it left out those from the beginning who behavior matches that that Jesus taught.

    No, Jesus’ work enabled God to show exactly the kind of mercy we expect Him to show:

    Acts 17:30: “True, God has overlooked the times of such ignorance, yet now he is telling mankind that they should all everywhere repent.”

    Romans 3:25, 26: “God set him forth as an offering for propitiation through faith in his blood. This was in order to exhibit his own righteousness, because he was forgiving the sins that occurred in the past while God was exercising forbearance; so as to exhibit his own righteousness in this present season, that he might be righteous even when declaring righteous the man that has faith in Jesus.”

    But my question was really to Jaco because I have seen him set aside beliefs to reprove his belief.

    Robert, I’m not sure what you mean by this. All I can do is to point out where and why certain beliefs are indeed erroneous. If there are Scriptural reasons for the contrary, I will consider them. For the time being I will argue my case, if not to change the conviction of a person, to prevent others from yielding to a belief I think is faulty.

    So, to my understanding, the Scriptural verdict is to know truth, since God wants to be worshiped, among other things, in truth (John 4:24). Else the notion of deception would be redundant. God also wants us to live the truth. Neither one on its own is fully in harmony with God’s Universal purposes. Else we could regress into some kind of Universalist New Age kind of worship.

    Jaco

  133. on 07 Dec 2010 at 9:23 amrobert

    “Conscience cannot be regarded as Divine revelation per se. It could support Divine revelation, but not the other way around, as one person’s conscience could approve of something while another person’s conscience condemns it.”

    Jaco
    This can be explained by influences that teach us to suppress our conscience.Satan would only need to show that the love of wealth and material things provides a feeling close to the feeling one gets from loving their fellow human.
    Plus influence from some that have mastered this suppression in the form of doctrines like what Sean was deceived by.
    Conscience is something instilled, so the question should be why did our creator instill it?
    I believe that true doctrine that was preached by the Law and also Jesus can be used as a shield from this outside influence

  134. on 07 Dec 2010 at 10:06 amJaco

    Conscience is the moral capacity. As with God’s instructions in Eden moral values need to be internalised. These values are either sacred or corrupt. Hence our need for Divine revelation of what is good and beneficial, else we risk the danger of death.

  135. on 07 Dec 2010 at 10:32 amrobert

    ” Conscience is the moral capacity. As with God’s instructions in Eden moral values need to be internalised. These values are either sacred or corrupt. Hence our need for Divine revelation of what is good and beneficial, else we risk the danger of death. ”

    Jaco

    Conscience can no more be explained then the actual creation of the universe.
    The one thing we can understand that all people have one whether they have suppressed or not and It is the greatest atribute of mankind as a whole.
    Jesus even expandes on the law by appealling to conscience when he shows that just looking at a women in lust should convict us of adultury and Hate should convict us of murder.
    What he is trying to show is our conscience should even stop us before the beginning of these acts. He is not saying they are adultury or murder.
    God promised a greater Divine revelation(Holy spirit) for those that follow the first instilled Divine revelation.
    The Law was added because of our transgressions. The question is to what did we transgress. These transgessions have to be against something from God or else his judgements of the past were not just. So either His Laws always existed or there is something else he has judged and destroyed by when he brought destuction on mankind thru out history.

    Thank you for your response

  136. on 07 Dec 2010 at 11:05 amXavier

    Jaco

    …the Scriptural verdict is to know truth, since God wants to be worshiped, among other things, in truth (John 4:24).

    I think this is the crux of this rather taxing subject, what does the bible mean when it says we are to worship God “in spirit and in truth”. By definition, I believe it simply means we should live our earthly lives in the spirit of God’s truth. As formulated in the dictum “the kingdom of God and the things concerning Messiah Jesus” [Acts 8.12].

    …speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the head, that is, Christ..So stop telling lies. Let us tell our neighbors the truth, for we are all parts of the same body. Eph 4.15, 25

  137. on 07 Dec 2010 at 7:37 pmDoubting Thomas

    Robert,
    You said in msg. #135, “Conscience can no more be explained then the actual creation of the universe. The one thing we can understand that all people have one whether they have suppressed or not and It is the greatest attributes of mankind as a whole.”

    I agree. The first thing to happen to Adam and Eve when they obtained knowledge was to feel shame because of their nakedness. There is no other living creature (that we are aware of) that feels shame or guilt. I believe that because we were created in the image of God, we have a little bit of God in each of us (our conscience). This allows us to feel guilt when we think we have done something wrong and to feel shame in other situations.

    I find it interesting that only mankind has been given a conscience and is capable of feeling guilt and shame. I believe this could be what’s makes us God’s children…

  138. on 10 Dec 2010 at 7:08 pmDoubting Thomas

    Robert,
    I realize this is off topic, but I didn’t know where else to post this. My son Jordan loves reading atheist sites, and will very often tell me about things that he has read there. He just told me that the story in Luke 4:16-30 cannot be true because there are no cliffs in the area of Nazareth. He also says there is no archeological evidence that a town existed there at the time of Yeshua/Jesus.

    Just wondering if you know anything about this stuff???

  139. on 10 Dec 2010 at 7:31 pmAntioch

    DT – did a little googling, seems like there is considerable evidence to support this story, for example:

    http://www.sacred-destinations.com/israel/mount-precipice.htm

  140. on 10 Dec 2010 at 7:51 pmrobert

    Thomas
    This is not just a topic of atheist sites, there are many christian sites who find no town of Nazareth in the 1st century. I also agree.
    The problem lies within the corruptions of the late 1st century which was trying to separate Christianity from Judaism.
    There is not record of Nazareth till the end of the first century.
    Jesus was a Nazarene because he lived amongst this sect(the same sect Paul was acussed of being a leader) and has no geographical location. The Nazareans where a group of hebrews that believed in taking the Nazarite vow. Jesus probably took this vow as a young man for a short period of time where John the baptist took a lifelong nazarite vow from his mothers womb in which his mother was in charge of obedience to it till John was a man.Samson and Samuel did the same.
    Jesus retakes this vow at the Last supper and will continue in it till he returns.
    As far as no cliffs in what now is called Nazareth, he is correct.

  141. on 10 Dec 2010 at 8:45 pmDoubting Thomas

    Antioch/Robert,
    Thanks for the info. I didn’t know how to respond to what he was saying…

  142. on 10 Dec 2010 at 9:10 pmrobert

    Thomas
    It is sad that these myths of the early church fathers have turned many people away from God and makes christianity into a complete myth.
    Thank God there is still a way to prove it is real for those who seek it.
    Your son is just seeking because he is smart enough to know it is provable if its real.

    Here is something on what i was saying in last post

    http://nazirene.peopleofhonoronly.com/wiki/index.php?title=Nazirene_Vow

  143. on 10 Dec 2010 at 11:33 pmMark C.

    Thomas,

    As is so often the case, we must be careful what sources we get our information from. The claim that Nazareth didn’t exist in Jesus’ day has been around for quite awhile and has been quoted on numerous sites. You need to do a little more digging to find responses to those claims. It all depends on which archaeologists you ask. Here is just one I found:

    http://www.ichthus.info/CaseForChrist/Archeology/intro.html

    Jesus was called a Nazarene because he was from Nazareth; there is no record of him taking a Nazarite vow, which is something different. He was called “Jesus of Nazareth” on many occasions, and there are several references to him having come from “Nazareth of Galilee.”  And there is also the well known question of Nathaniel, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:46).  The Sect of the Nazarenes of which Paul was said to be a ringleader was a sect of Jews who believed in Jesus, not a group of Jews who took a Nazarite vow.  You can look these up in any good Bible dictionary.

    As is always the case, we must look at multiple sources and compare, not just accept the first thing we read. You will find sites which agree with what has been posted, and you will find sites which do not. It is up to you to decide who is right.

  144. on 10 Dec 2010 at 11:58 pmMark C.

    Thomas,

    In determining which source is more reliable, one good way to tell is the references of sources used on the page. We all know that Wikipedia and other “Wiki” sites can be written or edited by anyone, and so require some kind of corroboration in order to be considered valid. The “Nazirene Vow” page that Robert linked to had no references of any kind, and was linked to a main page which is obviously written by people with certain beliefs and agendas.

    Contrast that with the following Wikipedia pages, which have abundant references:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_%28sect%29

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarite

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth

    These represent the known and accepted definitions for these words. But in any case, anyone who is interested can look at all of these various links and make up their own minds.

  145. on 11 Dec 2010 at 12:07 amDoubting Thomas

    Robert/Mark C.
    Thanks for providing even more info for me to look at. I really appreciate it…

  146. on 11 Dec 2010 at 9:17 amrobert

    “In determining which source is more reliable, one good way to tell is the references of sources used on the page. We all know that Wikipedia and other “Wiki” sites can be written or edited by anyone, and so require some kind of corroboration in order to be considered valid. The “Nazirene Vow” page that Robert linked to had no references of any kind, and was linked to a main page which is obviously written by people with certain beliefs and agendas.”

    Mark
    This has verifiable references all through it, there is no need to list them at bottom of page.
    YES the agenda might be that they want people to have access to the truth so the bible doesnt read as a myth.

    Everyone have a great Sabbath

  147. on 29 Apr 2011 at 6:59 pmDoubting Thomas

    I just finished reading “When Jesus became God” by Richard E Rubenstein. It is an excellent book for anyone who is interested in how the modern Trinity doctrine came into being. It is also very well written and easy to read (even for a layman like myself)…

  148. on 29 Apr 2011 at 10:31 pmXavier

    DT

    Have you tried these?

    Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 years by Philip Jenkins; A.D. 381: Heretics, Pagans, and the Dawn of the Monotheistic State by Charles Freeman.

  149. on 29 Apr 2011 at 11:26 pmDoubting Thomas

    Xavier,
    No I haven’t. Which book would you recommend I read first. Please remember that my vocabulary is limited and I have trouble understanding the technical language used by many scholars…

  150. on 30 Apr 2011 at 7:17 amXavier

    DT

    I am sure your not as bad as I am. 🙂

    I do not think these books are that scholarly. Their just history lessons, no theology as such. They both deal with the 4th century so you can start with either.

  151. on 22 Sep 2013 at 9:09 pmMary

    I believe the ambiguous title of God should be removed from the Bible. Not having the true name of our Creator in the Bible has been the root of problematic doctrines for many centuries. Actually, I did put YHVH in my Word of YHVH Bible. Amazingly, many of the verses continually used in argument from the Trinity is clearly not. It also settles many other disputes. I put YHVH (YaHavah) back in the Bible for all to see him as one Elohim, Creator of all.

  152. on 23 Sep 2013 at 12:08 amMary

    Correction: many of the verses used in argument for the Trinity clearly confirm one YHVH and one Son of YHVH.

  153. on 23 Sep 2013 at 9:51 amXavier

    Mary

    The exclusion of YHWH in the NT, does not make “the God” [ho theos] of Israel, Father of Jesus of Nazareth, somehow different or unidentifiable.

    The Name is replaced by the standard “Lord” or the Semitic “Abba” (Mar 14:36; Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6), in each case followed by its Greek equivalent, pater [“Father”].

    The only allusion to YHWH in the NT is found in the koine Greek phrase ho ōn ho ēn ho erchomenos: “the one being and the one who had been and the one coming” (Rev 1:4, 1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 16:5).

  154. on 23 Sep 2013 at 7:45 pmJas

    Mary
    It is rare to find someone who knows Yhvh is (YaHavah).
    Yes I find it extremely suspicious that the NT writers chose not to use the name of the Elohim considering we are told to proclaim the name of the Elohim.
    Actually the Name of the Most High is in Rev 19 in the untranslated phrase halleluYah PRAISE YAH which shows it was certainly still being used late 1st century.
    I think the name was way to jewish for the first translators into the greek our current MSS are based upon. The hatred was probably at its max early to mid 1st century cause scribal bias.

  155. on 25 Sep 2013 at 8:22 amRay

    Many Trinitarians acknowedge one God and one only begotten Son of God. Maybe next time I talk with a Trinitarian, I should ask him about what he thinks the term “begotten” of God is about and when that came about as concerning Christ, for I consider the Lord’s coming forth from God at that time of his conception in Mary, as God bringing him to birth in a spiritual sense, a time of his being born of the Spirit.

  156. on 25 Sep 2013 at 8:31 amRay

    As concerning the Lord being begotten of God, using the general time frame of his divine conception, when can we say that this being “born of God” happened?

    A. Before
    B. During
    C. After
    D. All of the above.

  157. on 26 Sep 2013 at 2:41 amMichael

    Ray writes- As concerning the Lord being begotten of God, using the general time frame of his divine conception, when can we say that this being “born of God” happened?

    Response…The word gennao, begotten has a connotation for a male and a female. For the male it is to father a child and for a female it is to be born but it is the same word. The seed God fathers his children with is not conceived by human women like a Greek mythology but is received by the person being fathered by God.

    1John 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

    The seed is sown in death and quickened by the resurrection just as God said of Jesus at the resurrection.

    Acts 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

    Jesus was fathered by God after his human conception begotten by the resurrection.

  158. on 26 Sep 2013 at 9:30 pmJas

    Michael
    Are you saying Jesus was begotten only by the resurrection But was given a seed from God to make that possible?
    If so what you are calling a seed is actually the Adoption which entering the Covenant brings forth which one can fall away from otherwise the seed can fall upon unfertile ground

  159. on 27 Sep 2013 at 2:51 amMichael

    Jas writes- Are you saying Jesus was begotten only by the resurrection.

    Response…The born aspect of the word gennao was produced by the resurrection. Prior to the resurrection Jesus could have been tempted, he could have sinned and he could and did die and after the resurrection these possibilities were now impossible

    Romans 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

    Jesus was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection and the word power means inherent power, power residing in a thing by virtue of its nature. This nature and everything that became manifest by the resurrection resided in Jesus by seed.

    John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

    The life that God has which is Zoë, eternal life is the life that Jesus had resided in Jesus by seed and was manifested by the resurrection.

    Jas writes- But was given a seed from God to make that possible?
    Response…The fathered aspect of the word gennao is how one is born of God.

    1Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

    Jas writes- If so what you are calling a seed is actually the Adoption…

    Response…” If so what “you” are calling a seed”… I did not write 1Peter 1:23 and Jesus is absolutely not the Son of God by adoption.
    No one from Adam to Jesus could be born from God.

  160. on 27 Sep 2013 at 9:41 amJas

    Michael
    I agree no one till the resurrection could be born of God but before that people were called the Son of God because of the adoption.
    David and Solomon were chosen by God as sons and at Jesus’ baptism he was too. The phrase today I have begotten you was the words of the finalizing the adoption till it was used of the new creation to describe being born of God from the dead. Jesus was legally the Son of God by the Adoption then became the firstborn son by the resurrection .You seem to be hung up on the metaphoric use of the word translated seed making it into something real. The Phrase Son of God was also widely used of priest,prophets and kings as a title for a representative or servant of God which has nothing to do with the adoption and being born again that Jesus was the first . The seed is the indwelling of The Holiest Spirit sent by The Most High in Jesus and the sending of another Spirit probably Angels to those after.

  161. on 27 Sep 2013 at 11:58 amMichael

    Jas writes- I agree no one till the resurrection could be born of God but before that people were called the Son of God because of the adoption.

    Response…There was no adoption before the resurrection of Jesus.

    1Corinthians 15:17-18 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

    Jas writes- David and Solomon were chosen by God as sons and at Jesus’ baptism he was too.

    Response…Again, Jesus is not a son by adoption and was and was born of God after his conception. He was the Son of God in the womb of Mary and was the Son of God when she gave birth to him.

    Luke 1:35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

    Jas writes-You seem to be hung up on the metaphoric use of the word translated seed making it into something real

    Response…Billion of people of various faiths and denominations with innumerable differences on the interpretation of scripture and yet there exist one thread of universal agreement in this tangled jumble, that the Creator cannot procreate, that God cannot have an ontological Son.

    Jas writes- “David and Solomon were chosen by God as sons” and Jas also writes “the phrase Son of God was also widely used of priest, prophets and kings as a title”

    Response…So David and Solomon were chosen as adopted sons of God but the other kings of Israel were sons of God in title, where do you come up with this stuff?

    Again, let me remind you of what the belief is of this sites faith. That God is the biological father of Jesus having done so with sperm from God with the necessity of his chosen virgin betrothed female human being.

    Deal with it if it is wrong and preach it if it is true but you’re dancing around it and avoiding it is shameless.

  162. on 27 Sep 2013 at 7:40 pmJas

    Michael
    You need to make your mind up. Was there or not an adoption before the resurrection ? So how can God state to David that Solomen was his SON. As far as David being told by God “Today I have begotten you” maybe God was just joking with David
    Was Jesus the Son of God before the resurrection or was it at his conception?
    Maybe I have not been clear that I dont claim Jesus as the biological or ontological Son of God which was caused by paganity creeping into christianity about early to mid 2nd century.
    Actually I have dealt with it by shedding the myth and coming to a better conclusion by actually researching very very thoroughly . Whats to dance around? Shamelessly ?

  163. on 28 Sep 2013 at 7:04 amDr Ali

    Add to the list ….

    James Dunn’s ‘Did early Christians worshipped Jesus ; a New Testament evidence’

  164. on 28 Sep 2013 at 4:20 pmJas

    1 Chronicles, chapter 17:

    [God is being quoted as speaking to Nathan, telling him to say the following things to David.]

    11: When your days are fulfilled to go to be with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom.
    12: He shall build a house for me, and I will establish his throne for ever.

    13: I will be his Father, and he shall be my Son; I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from him who was before you,

    14: but I will confirm him in my house and in my kingdom for ever and his throne shall be established for ever.'”

    15: In accordance with all these words, and in accordance with all this vision, Nathan spoke to David.

    Therefore, this passage quotes God as saying that, regarding one of David’s sons, “I will be his Father, and he shall be my Son” (capitals added, the way is usually done by Christians).
    Who is this son of David, who will be the “Son of God” ? This is made clear in two later passages in 1 Chronicles.

    1 Chronicles, chapter 22:

    7: David said to Solomon, “My son, I had it in my heart to build a house to the name of the LORD my God.
    8: But the word of the LORD came to me, saying, `You have shed much blood and have waged great wars; you shall not build a house to my name, because you have shed so much blood before me upon the earth.

    9: Behold, a son shall be born to you; he shall be a man of peace. I will give him peace from all his enemies round about; for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quiet to Israel in his days.

    10: He shall build a house for my name. He shall be my Son, and I will be his Father, and I will establish his royal throne in Israel for ever.’

    11: Now, my son, the LORD be with you, so that you may succeed in building the house of the LORD your God, as he has spoken concerning you.

    In the first underlined section, David repeats the words of God (according to the Hebrew Bible), that the person referred to will be the “Son of God.”
    The second underlined part shows that the person who will be the “Son of God” is “you,” that is, Solomon, to whom David is speaking.

    Finally, here is the third and last passage….

    1 Chronicles, chapter 28:

    [Here, David is being quoted.]

    3: But God said to me, `You may not build a house for my name, for you are a warrior and have shed blood.’
    4: Yet the LORD God of Israel chose me from all my father’s house to be king over Israel for ever; for he chose Judah as leader, and in the house of Judah my father’s house, and among my father’s sons he took pleasure in me to make me king over all Israel.

    5: And of all my sons (for the LORD has given me many sons) he has chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the LORD over Israel.

    6: He said to me, `It is Solomon your son who shall build my house and my courts, for I have chosen him to be my Son, and I will be his Father.

    7: I will establish his kingdom for ever if he continues resolute in keeping my commandments and my ordinances, as he is today.’

    Here, again God is quoted as directly saying that Solomon is His “Son”.

    Michael

    If you accept “shall be called the Son of God.” in Luke 1:35 as proof then why do you not accept the above quotes which are stronger in wording.
    Was Solomon the biological Son of God or the adopted Son of God and why should weaker language be taken literal. Actually the original Luke starts with the baptism of which God says to Jesus “You are my Son,Today I have parented you” and the Hebrew Matthew has the Holy spirit as His Mother stating about the same.
    This is the adoption ,later comes the actual begotting at the resurrection. Yes John does use future language but not always.

  165. on 29 Sep 2013 at 6:33 pmMichael

    Jas writes- Was Solomon the biological Son of God or the adopted Son of God

    Response…God is not biological so how could he have a biological son? Where Solomon has been declared as an adopted son of God?

    Jas writes- Actually the original Luke starts with the baptism of which God says to Jesus “You are my Son, Today I have parented you”

    Response…Where is the second Psalm quoted at the baptism of Jesus? You are making your argument from what you wish scripture stated to fit your own conclusions.

    Jas writes- the Hebrew Matthew has the Holy Spirit as His Mother stating about the same.

    Response… Where in scripture is Matthew calling the Holy Spirit the Mother of Jesus, what bible translation is being used here?

  166. on 29 Sep 2013 at 6:49 pmJas

    “God is not biological so how could he have a biological son? Where Solomon has been declared as an adopted son of God?”

    Michael
    I provided you 3 very very clear verses that states Solomon would be God’s son and God himself was to be his father.
    By adoption or biology ???

    “Where is the second Psalm quoted at the baptism of Jesus? You are making your argument from what you wish scripture stated to fit your own conclusions.”

    NET © and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. 1 And a voice came from heaven, “You are my one dear Son; 2 in you I take great delight.” 3

    3 tc Instead of “You are my one dear Son; in you I take great delight,” one Greek ms and several Latin mss and church fathers (D it Ju [Cl] Meth Hil Aug) quote Ps 2:7 outright with “You are my Son; today I have fathered you.”

    “Where in scripture is Matthew calling the Holy Spirit the Mother of Jesus, what bible translation is being used here?”

    Have you not read the early church fathers at all.
    There is a very intense written history !!

  167. on 29 Sep 2013 at 7:41 pmMichael

    Jas writes- I provided you 3 very very clear verses that states Solomon would be God’s son and God himself was to be his father.
    By adoption or biology ???

    Response…Nothing you write is very clear and here you conveniently ignore the third possibility of the term “Son of God” which you gave in post 160.

    You wrote-“The Phrase Son of God was also widely used of priest, prophets and kings as a title for a representative or servant of God”.

    So in the case of Solomon is the term “Son of God” is a title.

    Jas writes- the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. 1 And a voice came from heaven, “You are my one dear Son; 2 in you I take great delight.”

    Response…First you used the quote from the second Psalm and placed it in Luke where it does not appear (Jas writes-Luke starts with the baptism of which God says to Jesus “You are my Son, Today I have parented you”)

    Now to prove you were correct about this reference in Luke in this you switch to Matthew 3:17 “And lo a voice from heaven, saying, this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” which is still not a quote of the second Psalm or Acts 13:33…. Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

    So how do you solve this dilemma? You state that the KJV,NKJV,NLT,NIV,ESV,NASB,RSV,ASV,YLT,DBY,WEB,HNV, and VUL bible translations are incorrect interpretations of Matthew 3:17.

    I asked you … “Where in scripture is Matthew calling the Holy Spirit the Mother of Jesus, what bible translation is being used here?”

    Jas response- Have you not read the early church fathers at all.
    There is a very intense written history !!

    Response…Again, Where in scripture is Matthew calling the Holy Spirit the Mother of Jesus?

  168. on 29 Sep 2013 at 8:04 pmJas

    “Nothing you write is very clear and here you conveniently ignore the third possibility of the term “Son of God” which you gave in post 160.”

    Michael
    Actually I gave you Verses that were very very clear. I am not ignoring anything. Jesus became a whole new creation at his resurrection , a new way of being born none of which is relevant to the pre resurrection Jesus.
    If Jesus was the Son of God pre resurrection it was by adoption or biology . which is it?

    “…First you used the quote from the second Psalm and placed it in Luke where it does not appear (Jas writes-Luke starts with the baptism of which God says to Jesus “You are my Son, Today I have parented you”) ”

    Actually I provided you with a statement out of netbible which states facts that the alternate reading is witnessed by one Greek Ms,several latin Mss and several very well respected church fathers

    “So how do you solve this dilemma? You state that the KJV,NKJV,NLT,NIV,ESV,NASB,RSV,ASV,YLT,DBY,WEB,HNV, and VUL bible translations are incorrect interpretations of Matthew 3:17.”

    Actually all of these translations are based upon later Mss which most are just copies of copies of copies. But we have many early witnesses that state Matthew was written FIRST in Hebrew and they provide Quotes from it of which that reading is found. The Greek Matthew is a corruption of the early Roman Church out of hatred for anything jewish.

    Maybe a little research would help you but then again maybe you would just ignore it.

  169. on 29 Sep 2013 at 8:53 pmMichael

    Jas writes- I am not ignoring anything

    Response…You offered three posibilities on the definition of the term “Son of God” and then gave me two to choose leaving out your third definition which I chose and you believe that you are not ignoring anything?

    Jas writes- If Jesus was the Son of God pre resurrection it was by adoption or biology . which is it?

    Response…Again, your choices are both the incorrect answer, is your entire act a heads I win tails you lose game?

    Jas writes of Matthew 3:17- “I provided you with a statement out of netbible which states facts that the alternate reading is witnessed by one Greek Ms,several latin Mss and several very well respected church fathers”

    Response…Netbible translation of Matthew 3:17 “And a voice from heaven said, “This is my one dear Son; in him I take great delight.”….same interpretation as the bible translations you reject.

    So you claim to reject the mayority of the bible translations and seem to derive your points from some writings of your “early church fathers” which are not found in scripture to discuss the writings that are found in scripture, this is nonsense.

    You have exposed yourself for what you are and others may now continue with you and at least know what you are about and where you are coming from.

  170. on 29 Sep 2013 at 9:14 pmJas

    “You offered three posibilities on the definition of the term “Son of God” and then gave me two to choose leaving out your third definition which I chose and you believe that you are not ignoring anything?”
    Michael
    Actually While David and Solomon both could be CALLED the Son of God by the 3rd definition and Jesus at birth as well since his biological father was in the line of Kings. But we are dealing with a statement from God that Solomon will BECOME his Son in a very special way different than that of David.

    “Again, your choices are both the incorrect answer, is your entire act a heads I win tails you lose game?”

    Actually the 2 choicee are the only relevent choices

    “Netbible translation of Matthew 3:17 “And a voice from heaven said, “This is my one dear Son; in him I take great delight.”….same interpretation as the bible translations you reject.”

    I provided you with Luke 3:22 out of netbible not Matthew
    3:17 . The orthodox Jesus is God church completely ignores the Hebrew Matthew so dont look for them to tip anyone off it existed because it proves the trinity false as stated in their creed

    “You have exposed yourself for what you are and others may now continue with you and at least know what you are about and where you are coming from.”

    If you are against thorough research in searching for the truth then if you have put value in your beliefs then maybe you should not continue

  171. on 12 Oct 2017 at 7:34 amFahad

    Hell
    Ihave aquestion
    In the first three centuries of christianity were the christians unitarisn did unitarian christianity exist what does history tell us about that period
    Thank you

  

Leave a Reply