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This Site Is No Longer Active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.


From Trinitarian to Unitarian

  

I was looking through some old copies of Anthony Buzzard’s “Focus on the Kingdom” newsletter today and re-read an article in it that I enjoyed reading all over again (though it has been over six years since I first read it).  The following is from a woman who attended the 2004 Theological Conference in Atlanta GA and presented the story of her own personal faith journey during the yearly segment that centers on that subject and allows people in attendance to tell the audience their own stories. I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I did.


My Spiritual Journey

by Diane M.

This is a revised version of a presentation made at the 2004 Theological Conference.

When I was young, my parents called themselves fundamentalists. As I grew older, they began to use the term evangelical. (In my experience, the difference between the two is mostly one of tone: the manner of presentation of doctrine rather than the substance of doctrine. The stance of an evangelical toward the world is less confrontational and less wary than the stance of a fundamentalist.)

The theology I was taught, and believed, from adolescence through most of my adult years I call evangelical orthodoxy. Some major doctrines are the Trinity, the dual nature of Christ, salvation by faith evidenced by works, eternal security, the pre-tribulation rapture of the church, the immortality of the human soul with immediate heaven or hell after death, and the everlasting suffering of the damned in hell.

I trusted Christ for salvation when I was about five years old. This is how it happened. Since I was the youngest child by eight years, I was often alone with my mother. One morning we went shopping, and one of the things Mom bought was a coloring book for me. It was a special coloring book in which the pictures would turn various colors when painted by plain water. I was very excited by this, and when we got home, I wanted to do it right away. But my mother told me to wait until she could supervise me, so I wouldn’t make a mess. She went about her business, and I was left alone with my temptation. Of course, I deliberately disobeyed my mother by painting in that coloring book all by myself. And of course, I made a mess.

Mom was exasperated with me, and thought she had better do something different than just sending me to the “naughty chair” as usual. So while she made lunch, she evangelized me. As I listened to Mom tell me about the temptation and disobedience of Adam and Eve, and about God’s promise of a Savior, and about the obedience, death, and resurrection of Jesus, I became more and more convicted of my sin. Mom didn’t ask me to pray after her or with her. She just kept making lunch. I don’t remember eating lunch, or being punished. All I remember is going to the living room couch by myself, and lying on it face down, and quietly crying out to God to save me through what Jesus did for me.

Several times during my childhood years, when I became convicted of sin, I prayed again for God to save me, just in case the first time wasn’t for real. I wanted to be sure I was saved. In each case, I did this alone, on my own, and not as a result of an appeal in a church meeting.

When I was about twelve or thirteen, I was outside our house with a neighbor friend, and Mom was with us too, probably working in the garden. Somehow the subject of church came up. My friend was going to confirmation classes, and told my mom that their church believed in something called the Trinity, and that it was hard to understand. My mom told my friend that we believed that too, and tried to explain it better to my friend. I was shocked at her explanation, because I hadn’t heard anything like it before. I’m sure I had heard the word “Trinity,” but it was just one of those religious words that kids know they can’t understand. The idea that God was some mysterious Three-in-One seemed strange to me. I didn’t understand, but I didn’t say anything. I kept my questions to myself.

Shortly thereafter I was baptized. During the preparation interview, I told the elders how I had trusted Christ for salvation when I was younger. I was baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, not really understanding what that meant.

As I grew older, I believed as I was taught, that the disembodied souls of the dead went straight to heaven or hell, and that true believers would be raptured into heaven before the tribulation and the subsequent return of Christ with his saints to set up his kingdom on earth.

After high school I went to a Bible school. I don’t remember the specifics of what was said in my theology classes about the Trinity and about Jesus. I adopted a theoretical agreement with what I was taught, but I didn’t really try to think through the implications, or ponder the many so-called paradoxes, since they were supposed to be mysteries no one could understand. I knew Jesus was a human being, and I figured if the Bible said he was God too, who was I to argue? I never really questioned whether my teachers were correct.

My husband and I met at the Bible school. We married a year after we graduated. The years went by. We had two boys to raise.

In 1993, we moved to another area. Not too long after we moved, a neighbor invited me to go with her to a non-denominational Bible study nearby. I attended those classes for six years. One day toward the end of those years, I was sitting in the discussion group, sharing my answer to one of the questions. The question was something like, “What are some of the major blessings of your life that you are thankful for?” Part of my answer was, “that I have had good Bible teaching through the years.”

As I spoke, a voice in my head said, “How do you know it was good teaching? You’ve never questioned it.”

I believe now that it was God’s voice. It was certainly not my own thought. At the time I wasn’t sure if it was God speaking or a temptation from an evil spirit. I considered what the voice said very cautiously. I didn’t want to succumb to temptation, if that was what it was. But I didn’t want to ignore God’s voice, if that’s what it was. I tucked the voice’s question into the back of my mind, and considered it occasionally. I became interested in how we know what is true. I wanted to know more about how to interpret the Bible, and how to think logically. When information came across my path, I paid attention.

At that time in my life, our boys were in their teens. The older one was quiet and very smart and stubborn. He had a strong inner direction. The younger one was all over the place, and all over everybody. He was gregarious, charming, inquisitive, restless, boisterous, contentious, fearless, impetuous, and often in minor trouble.

The difficulty of dealing with our younger son put a strain on our marriage. Neither of us was really competent to parent him. My husband could retreat into his work, but I was on the front line with the problem child. Nothing I tried with him seemed to work. I felt like a total failure. I feared for my son. What kind of trouble would he get into next? I feared that he might disgrace the name of Jesus Christ.

When I knew that I was at the end of my emotional rope, I went into the shower, turned on the water full blast, and sobbed and cried out my pain. I cried out to God, begging Him to bring healing to my family relationships, and to bring all of us to a place of total commitment in service to Him and His kingdom.

Then I heard His voice in my head, saying, “Are you asking this because you want your own life to be easier? What if your life got much harder?”

I thought for a minute. Then I said, “No matter what it takes,” and I meant it.

God said, “Hold on tight to Me; you’re on a roller coaster and the ride isn’t over yet.”

I was able to hold myself together emotionally after that, and to deal a little more intelligently with my situation. I determined to keep holding on tight to God, no matter what might happen.

Some time later, our younger son bought a second-hand mini motor bike, which he rode out on the main road sometimes, even though we warned him of the danger. Only weeks after he got the bike, he was thrown from it when it collided with a car at an intersection near our home. He was not wearing a helmet.

He was unconscious when the EMTs arrived. He had very serious head trauma, as well as internal injuries. He remained in a very deep coma, but was breathing on his own. We prayed together for his recovery, if it was God’s will. We knew that God could heal him, and we kept up hope.

On the seventh day after the accident, we got the telephone call from the hospital, saying that about a half hour before, he had gone into cardiac arrest, and could not be revived.

Before the shock wore off, I determined to trust and praise God even when I didn’t feel like it. When the shock did wear off and the full severity of grief set in, I kept on trusting and praising God. I knew there was nowhere else to turn.

As time went by, the grief began to fade into the background of my consciousness. Then one day, I asked myself questions I had never dared to ask before: What if the evangelical orthodoxy I had been taught wasn’t really based on a proper interpretation of the Bible? What if the Reformation hadn’t recovered all the essentials of truth that had been perverted during the Roman church’s monopoly? What did the Bible really teach?

I knew that to search earnestly for the answers to those questions was risky. What if I found out that I had believed wrong doctrine all these years? How could I know for sure? But I couldn’t “un-ask” the questions that were now resonating in my head. Anyway, I figured that if evangelical orthodoxy represented the truth, it would withstand careful scrutiny.

So I committed myself fully to the search for the answers. I began to pray that God would lead me to the information I needed. I prayed for wisdom as I never had before. I trusted God to help me to sort through the welter of conflicting ideas that I found from every Google search.

For a while I was dizzy with confusion. But even though I didn’t yet know which of the many possibilities in major areas of theology might be the truth, gradually I became convinced that something was seriously wrong with the evangelical orthodoxy I had grown up with. For many months, all I knew for sure was that God exists, as the creator of all, and is in some manner the Father of Jesus, who is the Savior-Messiah, in whom I trusted for salvation. Slowly, carefully, I evaluated all the historic options and logical possibilities for each major area of doctrine, testing each possibility against Scripture. I began to build up a coherent theology piece by piece, by eliminating rejected possibilities.

As I began to firm up my new understanding of major doctrinal issues, the web sites that helped me most were the Restoration Fellowship website, the Jesus the Messiah and His Kingdom website, and ABC-COGGC.org. I had bought only one “unorthodox” book before my husband became alarmed by my final rejection of orthodoxy and forbad me to buy any more books. It was One God and One Lord: Reconsidering the Cornerstone of the Christian Faith, by Graeser, Lynn, and Schoenheit. By the time I had read it through for the third time, most of my nagging doubts regarding my new beliefs about God and Jesus Christ were resolved.

I have now firmly rejected the orthodox doctrines of the Trinity, the dual nature of Christ, the immortality of the human soul, hell as everlasting torment, “going to heaven” as the reward of the faithful, and eternal security in the sense of “once saved, always saved.” I have now firmly embraced what I believe to be the Bible’s clear teaching of the absolute unity of God, the true humanity of Jesus Christ as the Son of God who came into being in the womb of a virgin, the sleep of the dead, and the final destruction of those who are unrepentant and of apostates. I believe the promise to believers of resurrection to immortality in the coming kingdom of God on earth to be an integral part of the Gospel message.

When I had become firmly convinced of my new beliefs, I knew that I had to figure out how to explain my transformation to family and friends. Since I have always felt more comfortable writing than speaking, I decided to prepare myself by writing out my new belief system. The process of putting it all on paper helped me greatly to clarify things in my own mind. During the process of writing and revising, I researched again on many topics, to re-test my new beliefs against the Bible. I am now confident that I have discovered the true Bible teaching on the major doctrinal issues. I still don’t have a firm understanding of some of the less basic issues of theology and practice. I’m glad that I don’t need to know and understand all the details of theology in order to walk with God.

I realize now that my emotional roller coaster ride will not end until I die. Every hairpin turn, every hillcrest, brings a new combination of difficulties into my life. I’m glad that I don’t know what those difficulties will be until I’m actually in the middle of them. I’m glad that God is with me, keeping me safe through it all. I’m looking forward to the end of the ride, and beyond, to resurrection: I’ll be reunited with fellow believers who have died. I’ll actually see and be with Jesus. I’ll be like him.

I’m looking forward to life in the coming Kingdom. What sort of responsibility will I qualify for? Whatever it may be, it will be a welcome challenge, unsullied by personal failure or defeat.

And after that? All evil will be judged and destroyed, and I will live forever in blissful intimacy with God and Jesus and everyone else who remains. I’ll be able to use the water of everlasting life to paint the full color of meaning into the promise that is only a black and white sketch to me now. I’m sure it will be worth the wait.

109 Responses to “From Trinitarian to Unitarian”

  1. on 17 Jan 2010 at 12:40 pmFiona

    Hi Ron S
    What an inspiring story,I’m so glad you posted it! What is really interesting is that from the “Google search” onwards, it really is a duplicate of my story (including her favorite websites, and also her beliefs) My “cross” has been chronic bad health, but I believe that that, too, has a purpose. Diane’s idea of the personal written “statement of faith”, if you like, is excellent-I’m going to do it too! I wonder how and where Diane is now? Maybe we will meet one day in the Age to come!
    Fiona

  2. on 17 Jan 2010 at 12:53 pmDoubting Thomas

    Ron S.
    This is a beautiful letter from Diane M. I have always been fascinated with human behavior and believe that behavior is always related to one`s beliefs. I never get tired of hearing how God reveals his truth to people. Each and every one of us has an interesting story to tell…

  3. on 17 Jan 2010 at 3:52 pmRay

    I wonder what’s going on with my computer. I’m seeing all kinds of symbols where words in English would usually appear on such a page. Is anyone else having that problem?

  4. on 17 Jan 2010 at 4:09 pmAngela

    Thanks for sharing this! I love hearing people’s personal testimonies. My husband and I are making plans to attend this year’s 2010 Theological Conference this spring. 🙂

  5. on 06 Nov 2011 at 10:07 pmSarah

    Hi all,

    This author’s testimony sounds a lot like where I am in terms of making
    the switch in from trinitarian to unitarian. My relational circle is almost 99.9% trinitarian – I have the support of just one family member. This is weighing heavily on me as I try to navigate “next steps”. I am in the process of gathering my thoughts to write up a statement of faith. But while I am growing more and more convinced of the unitarian position, it feels very intimidating to be so completely outnumbered (for now).

    What did you guys do for support, those who made a similar switch? How do I find people of similar outlook in my own city? The online is helpful, but it’s not a lot of help during interpersonal interaction. How did you deal with concerns over how family members would react when you broke the news of the change in your views? What did you do for encouragement during that time?

    Thanks for your thoughts…just struggling with this lately…

  6. on 06 Nov 2011 at 11:26 pmDoubting Thomas

    Hi Sarah,
    When I first came to my Unitarian beliefs, I didn’t even know what the word Unitarian meant. I did some research on the internet and whenever I tried to google the word Unitarian, Unitarian Universalists would come up. It said that the members were mostly non-Christian. I immediately dismissed it, because I was looking for fellow Christians to share my thoughts and feelings with, and who I could discuss the bible with. This meant that I was totally alone for quite a long time.

    I shared my views with some of my closest Christian friends and surprisingly they didn’t reject me as a friend, or as a fellow Christian. I eventually found out about the existence of Biblical Unitarians. That is when I first met Anthony Buzzard through the internet. I explained my beliefs to him and he told me that I was a Socinian in my beliefs. Of course I had never heard of the word Socinian before, and had no idea what it meant.

    Anthony recommended this site to me, and I have been here ever since. This is my on-line church. I come here, and to a few other sites, for fellowship. I find the people here are most encouraging and non-judgmental. For some reason there have been very few people posting on this site in the last few weeks. This makes me very sad, since I consider the people on this site to be my spiritual family.

    Anywaze, back to your problem. There is a site that has a list of Biblical Unitarian churches on it. Maybe someone else could post the site address here for you. I don’t remember the site myself. I just remember looking at it and I couldn’t find where on the site that this list was posted. I’m not very good at searching for things on the internet. I am fairly new to computers and such. But, I have been told that a list of B.U. churches does exist.

    I don’t know if I’ve been of any help or not, but I’m sure others on this site with more knowledge than myself will also be able to give you advice and direction as well. May the peace and love of God (“OUR” Father) be with you and with us all. God Bless…

  7. on 07 Nov 2011 at 10:08 amSarah

    DT,

    Thanks so much for the encouragement. It strikes me that for all the bad stuff out there on the internet, God has also used the internet to reveal truth that was simply inaccessible to people in mainstream churches for so long. I would love to see this small online community work together and find a way to mobilize local support nationwide as more and more people come to a knowledge of the truth…

  8. on 07 Nov 2011 at 6:22 pmTim (aka Antioch)

    Sarah – thanks for sharing and for bumping this post. This subject hits close to home for me as well. My church is very important to me – the people, the ministries that I’ve gotten involved with, the recharging that it provides just to be around other Christians, and the role it also plays in my wife’s and my son’s life. My unitarian belief has taken a back seat in order to keep those things.

    But I do long for face to face interaction with other unitarians (or really, anyone that can discuss such topics like the Bereans were willing to do). I tried, not very extensively, to find a small group that is focused on discussing/searching for the truth about God. No fruit came of that as yet but I will certainly share if I come across something and would love to hear from anyone else that may have found or started such a group.

    DT – I have been a little saddened too by the lack of posts of late. I hope that is mainly because there hasn’t been as many articles to post on.

  9. on 07 Nov 2011 at 9:39 pmSarah

    Tim,

    Thanks for your thoughts too. I can relate to your dilemma – the options in my city are basically go to a trinitarian church or don’t go to church. Also, there is no question in my mind that on the whole my church family are genuine believers who deeply love the Lord. But I never noticed before how many trinitarian songs there are, or how often it is mentioned casually from the pulpit. Do you ever run into conflicts in the ministries you’re involved with in terms of doctrine? Are there minefields you’ve had to avoid to remain active in your church and yet hold true to your unitarian beliefs?

  10. on 08 Nov 2011 at 2:13 amBrian Keating

    Hi All,

    FYI – as we have all discovered, there are very, very few Biblical Unitarian groups – virtually all Christian groups believe in the Trinity. As a result, you may find the information below useful. Basically, the links below contain the “fellowship finder” information, for several groups that do have Biblical Unitarian beliefs. (Note that you will need to copy-and-paste the links below into your browser, in order to visit the sites in question.)

    First, this blog site is run by Living Hope International Ministries (LHIM). The link below contains a list of the fellowships that are officially part of LHIM; as well as a list of LHIM’s outreach partners:

    http://lhim.org/find_others/find_others.php

    Next, many of the posters on this blog (myself included) are affiliated with a group called The Church of God General Conference (COGGC). As far as I know, COGGC and LHIM have almost identical beliefs. Here is the list of churches and home fellowships that are affiliated with COGGC:

    http://www.abc-coggc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15&Itemid=124

    If there aren’t any LHIM or COGGC fellowships near you, then you might want to consider investigating another group, called the Christadelphians. The Christadelphians have very similar beliefs to LHIM and COGGC, with one primary difference – they do not believe in a “personal” devil (or in personal demons, for that matter). In other words, they do not believe that there are any spirit beings who have ever disobeyed God.

    My overall experience with the Christadelphians has been very good – in fact, I attended a Bible study with a Christadelphian group for over six months, and it was very informative. However, from what I have seen, some individual Christadelphians are rather “sensitive” about the “personal devil” issue – i.e., if you do believe in a personal devil, then they might consider you to be a polytheist. (The people at the ecclesia that I visited did not treat me that way, fortunately.) Also note that the Christadelphians do not permit you to take communion with them, unless you are a baptized Christadelphian.

    The page below contains links to Christadelphian ecclesias, around the entire world:

    http://www.christadelphia.org/ecclesia.htm

    I hope this information is useful to everyone!

  11. on 08 Nov 2011 at 2:36 amBrian Keating

    Hi,

    FYI – this is an “addendum” to my last comment. A while back I wrote a blog post, which compared six different groups that have unitarian beliefs. Here is a link to that post:

    http://lhim.org/blog/2010/03/21/groups-with-unitarian-beliefs/

    Brian

  12. on 08 Nov 2011 at 4:09 amTim (aka Antioch)

    Sarah,

    There have not been many conflicts to date because I have kept silent, but I anticipate them going forward as word inevitably leaks out about my beliefs. I’ve been completely open about it with several of the elders and I know my wife has asked for prayers about me as I wrestle with my ‘false understanding’. I’ve been given a pass to date since I am still fairly new to the faith (less than two years). I’m also something of a miracle case at our church, having attended for seven years and was avidly not a Christian (just went to appease my wife and figured all in all it was good for my son as well). So when God called me at the age of 46, there was much celebrating and the honeymoon is still going.

    I did back out of one small group recently because I felt uncomfortable continuing. It is a men’s group and some guys have really opened their hearts. I felt like a fraud continuing, holding back my true beliefs. I felt they deserved my honesty, but I made a vow to not be divisive at this church. While the decision still bothers me, I know I could not sit in that group any longer.

    I’m involved still with one other small group bible study. We are going through Romans and but for Romans 9:5 (which I happened to be gone that week) it is a fairly benign book from a trinity standpoint. While we do study the bible more than we did in the men’s group, it is fairly well guided and sadly, not much room or time for open discussion. Lookout if we ever tackle John though 🙂

    Curiously, we just covered the last section of Romans 14 where Paul is warning those strong in the faith not to engage in activity that would cause the weaker in faith to stumble. I got a little chuckle just today as it dawned on me how this applies here. I could probably cause quite a few to stumble by airing this out. But, unless I were absolutely positive that God would want me to do that, I think keeping quiet is the better course. No getting that cat back in the bag once its out. I do not think trinitarians are going to hell for their belief. From my experience, 90% of them don’t even really understand it anyway, so how can they be saved or condemned for something they don’t even understand?

    So, I don’t really have any answers. I don’t think God is done with me on this and I sure hope that he is not done with my church on it either. I would love to be at a church where this could be openly debated, but the reality is the trinity hardly ever comes up (curious if it is supposedly an essential doctrine). I think our pastors have mentioned it maybe three times in the nine years now I have been attending, and one of those was specifically for my benefit!

    I’m curious to hear any epiphanies you might have or circumstances that might come up at your church. I will certainly share anything relevant at mine.

  13. on 08 Nov 2011 at 3:24 pmSarah

    Brian,

    Thanks so much for the church resources. Sadly, at the moment there are none in my area. Hopefully you guys keep those listings updated though? I will check it occasionally.

    Tim,

    I can really identify with your predicament. It is inevitable that my views are going to come out eventually, and I am preparing myself to deal with being viewed as a heretic. I am wrestling with if/when/how to discuss with my pastor my views, particularly since I am relatively new to my church.

    On a more personal note, I do not want division in my own family over this issue, yet most of them consider belief in the trinity necessary for salvation. Figuring out how to break it to them is quite the challenge. I think it will be in the form of a written paper. They have an inkling that something is going on in my views with regards to the trinity, but not the full story yet. It feels very strange to be diverging from certain beliefs I shared with my family for so long, and losing that sense of “unity” we always previously felt on these spiritual issues.

    I really want to get all of us on the same page immediately, but I realize it’s unlikely they’ll immediately accept when I am going to tell them. So I am trying to prepare myself for a period of time when they will be at odds with me on this. Not easy! I can imagine how difficult it must be for you that your wife isn’t yet in full agreement. I pray that day will come soon for you.

  14. on 08 Nov 2011 at 8:21 pmTim (aka Antioch)

    Sarah,

    Maybe you mentioned it before and I’m not remembering, but what was it that caused you to start questioning the trinity? Have your family members thought much about the trinity or are they, like I see most trinitarians, accepting a tradition they have never really been given any reason to doubt it?

    I’m working on my own document, a summation of my research, and will be sending it to one of the pastor/elders and my wife when I am done with it. I have started with the 5 biggest issues that I cannot reconcile with the trinitarian interpretation:

    1) No explicit, unambiguous statement that Jesus is God
    2) No explicit, unambiguous statement that God is multi-personal
    3) No debate recorded in the NT about the trinity
    4) Jesus has a God
    5) God cannot die but Jesus died

    Each part anticipates the common counters and why I do not find them persuasive.

    So, I agree with your writing it down as it is the same path I am taking. I think it best to let others read through your reasoning and have time to think about it before engaging verbally.

    By the way, http://www.biblicalunitarian.com just updated their website and I think the 100 scriptural arguments they have there is a great list that every trinitarian should be aware of.

    Thanks for your prayers, they are much appreciated. My wife prayed for my conversion for 10+ years so now I guess it is my turn.

  15. on 08 Nov 2011 at 9:07 pmSarah

    Tim,

    The first time I questioned the trinity was some 20 yrs ago in highschool, when I encountered the verse where Jesus said “Why do you say I’m good? There is none good but God.” I took this verse to my baptist highschool youth pastor one day and he gave me the usual trinitarian explanation. I accepted his anwer, but on some level it didn’t satisfy me. But the trinity is taught in such a way that you made to feel you are in terrible danger of becoming apostate if you so much as question it. So I was afraid to look into it further, especially since I didn’t know there was any legitimate Biblical alternative. Early this year I felt the spirit prompting me to investigate it on my own. Soon after I encountered a Christain Unitarian website while looking up something else entirely…and the rest is history.

    As for my family, I really think they have accepted the tradition primarily because they are unaware of any legitimate alternative. I think it will be very difficult for them to change, though.

    Your five points look fairly similar to the ones I am planning. So far I am dividing it up like this:

    a) There are fundamental attributes true of God that are not true of Christ unless you redefine terms. For example, God is not a man, God cannot die, God is omnisicient, and God cannot be tempted.
    b) A true Father – Son relationship does not allow for it. How can a father and a son be the same person at the same time?
    c) The Bible does not clearly teach it. No debate in the Monotheistic Jewish community recorded either.
    d) The Biblical Adam/Christ comparisons make no sense if Christ is God, but make perfect sense if Christ is the new “Adam”.
    e) Representational Deity is a better explanation than literal deity. It more effectively harmonizes all the data about Jesus.

    Also, I think a section of my paper will address John 1, because this is the linchpin in the minds of many I know. Some of my family jumped to that one when I let them know I was questioning and studying the trinity.

    Thanks for the link. I haven’t been to that site in a while…I’ll have to pay a visit.

  16. on 08 Nov 2011 at 9:31 pmDoubting Thomas

    Tim (aka Antioch)
    Thanks for the link to the Biblical Unitarian website. They quote some excellent verses.
    I found it to be very convincing indeed.. 🙂

  17. on 09 Nov 2011 at 11:27 amTim (aka Antioch)

    Just reading through the ‘Letters from Mary Dana’ on that site, apropos to Sarah who is wrestling with something similar for her family. These letters were written in the mid 1800s and I am amazed at the depth of research and knowledge that she displays without an internet to support her. It gives me strength to see how she stood against a tide of rebuke and did so with love, patience and a constant focus on truth.

    My letter to my family was of a different subject. My four sisters and I were all raised Catholic and all but one effectively left the reservation. My letter was to declare I was now a Christian. The surviving Catholic rejoiced, one sister expressed concern of ‘losing me’, one said good for you but I’m happy where I’m at, and the surprise was the last sister that cried over my letter cause she had been feeling the pull to God of late.

  18. on 09 Nov 2011 at 11:40 amSarah

    I just read the first part of the first letter by Mary Dana, and was tremendously encouraged. Thank you, Tim. It was like reading the letter I haven’t written yet! And to think, this was a woman who lived over 150 years ago….wish I could have known her…

  19. on 18 Nov 2011 at 9:00 pmMarc Taylor

    The fact that Christ properly receives prayer necessitates that He is God.

  20. on 19 Nov 2011 at 8:25 amXavier

    MT

    Does “the fact” that the Davidic King “receives” worship alongside YHWH in 1Chro 29.20 “neccesitaes that He is God” also? The King is even called “god” in Ps 45.

  21. on 19 Nov 2011 at 11:54 pmMarc Taylor

    X,
    From http://www.forananswer.org/Rev/Rv5_13.htm

    In other contexts, Witnesses argue (correctly) that the Hebrew shâchâh, rendered “worship” in the ASV (“did homage” in the NASB), does not necessarily mean “religious devotion” or the “genuine worship” rightfully rendered to God alone (though it certainly does mean this in many examples). It can mean simply, “bowing down,” or “rendering obeisance.” This nuance is brought out nicely in the NIV:

    Then David said to the whole assembly, “Praise the LORD your God.” So they all praised the LORD , the God of their fathers; they bowed low and fell prostrate before the LORD and the king.

    Similarly, the Hebrew word translated “bowed low” (qâdad; “to bow down” – BDB) is not used exclusively of cultic devotion to God, but can simply mean reverence, rightly offered to men in moments of great emotion (e.g., Genesis 43:28).

    Thus, in 1 Chronicles 29, we cannot say with certainty that “worship” in the strict sense is being offered to David. The bowing down may be an act of reverence, appropriate to both the King and God. Indeed, this is likely, given the numerous warnings in the OT that worship of anyone or anything other than God is the gravest of sins (e.g., Exodus 20:5). If it is argued that bowing before God must be an act of worship, it will be remembered that worship is a matter of the heart, and thus the Israelites in bowing before God rendered to Him what is proper, while bowing before David they rendered him what is also proper:

    and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the Lord and the king; the one with religious worship, the other with civil (Gill).

    In Revelation 5:13, however, we are not dealing outward signs of reverence or hidden matters of the heart. We actually see and hear the praises offered to God and the Lamb by all creation. This is no mere shâchâh / proskuneo (“bowing down”), properly offered in some cases to a creature. This “worship” is an entire symphony of praise, sung to God in the very throne room of Heaven. ‘Bowing down” is certainly a part of this religious devotion (verse 14), but only part. John is expansive and specific about the praise that is offered – “blessing, honor, glory, power, dominion.” These terms of praise are never bound together and offered to kings or angels as “worship” alongside God. Indeed, even in 1 Chronicles 29:20, while the assembly prostrated themselves before both God and the king, they offered “praise” (Hebrew: bârak; LXX: eulogeô)4 to God alone. To do otherwise would constitute idolatry. When offered to God, “blessing” must the the highest possible blessing; “honor” the highest possible honor; “glory” the highest possible glory; “dominion” the most expansive of all dominions. And these are the very praises (signified by the use of the Greek article) that are offered to both God and the Lamb. Unlike 1 Chronicles 29, there is simply no “wiggle room” to allow any limitation whatsoever in the praise offered to the Lamb. It is the same as that offered to God.

    If we were told in Revelation 5:13 that all of creation merely “worshipped” (Greek: proskuneo ) both God and the Lamb, 1 Chronicles 29:20 might provide a legitimate parallel. However, Revelation 5:13 offers us far more than that. To take a verse that depicts Israel “falling prostrate” before both God and king and conclude that the expansive praises offered God and the Lamb in Revelation 5 constitute some lesser form of “worship” is without warrant.
    ————————
    In Acts 1:24 Christ is said to know all the hearts of people. This proves that He is God. For an omniscient Being is by definition “God”.
    Omniscient: (3) the Omniscient God (Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, page 1005, NY: Gramercy Books, c. 1996).

    Mounce: The fact that people pray to both God (Mt. 6:9) and Jesus (Acts 1:24) is part of the proof of Jesus’ deity (Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words, Pray, page 531).
    NIDNTT: God alone can reveal the things hidden in the heart of man (1 Cor. 4:5), examine them (Rom. 8:27) and test them (1 Thess. 2:4) (2:183, Heart – T. Sorg).
    NIDNTT: This belief in the omniscience of God is expressed succinctly by the adj. kardiognswttess (2:183, Heart – T. Sorg).

  22. on 20 Nov 2011 at 10:08 amSean

    Marc,

    Maybe you have proved this somewhere else, but how do you know the Lord in Acts 1.24 is Jesus? It seems much more likely to refer to God here. Furthermore, knowing some things does not mean the same as knowing everything. I find your omniscient argument unconvincing.

  23. on 20 Nov 2011 at 4:25 pmSarah

    Marc,

    2 Samuel 14:20 – “In order to change the course of things your servant Joab did this. But my lord has wisdom like the wisdom of the angel of God to know all things that are on the earth.”

    Applying your reasoning, the “angel of God” in this verse is actually God because the angel is said to “know all things on the earth”?

    Perhaps instead to “know all things” in this context, and to “know everyone’s heart” in Acts 1:24, is still inherently a limited knowledge because it is given to them by God.

  24. on 20 Nov 2011 at 6:07 pmMarc Taylor

    Sean,
    Please provide the evidence that “Lord” in Acts 1:24 refers to the Father and then I will provide the evidence that it refers to the Lord Jesus.
    To know the hearts of all is the same thing as being omniscient. That is how kardiognwstees is properly defined. I already cited the NIDNTT and Mounce above. Here is the TDNT as well.
    TDNT: the omniscient God knows the innermost being of every man where the decision is made either for Him or against Him (3:613, kardiognwstees – Behm).
    Furthermore, the fact that the Bible teaches that Christ properly receives prayer in other passages also means that He is omniscient (Acts 7:59; 1 Corinthians 1:2; etc.)
    ———————-
    Sarah,
    Those words were not spoken by God but from a woman.

    See also Gill on this passage.
    http://studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=2sa&chapter=014&verse=020

  25. on 20 Nov 2011 at 7:44 pmSarah

    Marc,

    Jhn 16:30 Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God.”

    Jhn 16:31 “You believe at last!” Jesus answered.

    Why didn’t they say, “This makes us believe you ARE God?” Or at the very least, why didn’t Jesus correct them?

  26. on 20 Nov 2011 at 8:16 pmMarc Taylor

    Sarah,
    No need to. The fact that they would later pray to/worship Him after His resurrection demonstrates they already believed He was/is God. There is no use praying to/worshiping the Lord Jesus if He is not omniscient.

  27. on 20 Nov 2011 at 9:08 pmDoubting Thomas

    If in John 16:30 they said they believe that Y’shua came from God, and if in Matthew 16:16 Peter said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

    Why (at that time) didn’t Y’shua correct them and tell them that he was in reality God???

    Why did he say, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. (18) And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”???

    Just when was it exactly that Peter and the other disciples suddenly realized that Y’shua wasn’t the human Messiah that they were expecting???

    Where in the scriptures does Y’shua reveal to his followers that he is in reality God???

    I don’t see anywhere in the scriptures where the followers of Y’shua suddenly realized that he was in reality a God Man, and not the human Messiah they and the rest of the Jews were expecting…

  28. on 20 Nov 2011 at 9:28 pmMarc Taylor

    DT,
    No need for correction. The Son of God is God. If someone says to me that I am a teacher that doesn’t mean I can’t be a student as well.

    I’ll write this again…..the fact that Christ is properly prayed to necessitates that He is God. Furthermore, I have supplied more than one source that defines kardiognwstees as such.

  29. on 20 Nov 2011 at 9:56 pmSarah

    If someone says to me that I am a teacher that doesn’t mean I can’t be a student as well

    So, applying this logic to the trinity, you are therefore sitting in the classroom taking notes on the lecture that you are simultaneously delivering to yourself?

  30. on 20 Nov 2011 at 11:04 pmSarah

    More importantly, Marc, I think the article you posted regarding worship Rev 5:13 sidesteps some important issues.

    The scene pictured is clearly in the midst of the tribulation at the end of the age. While the article rightly claims that John’s description of the worship is expansive and specific, to include “blessing, honor, power, glory, dominion”, it then makes an inferential leap in assuming this means Jesus is God. The article neglects to consider that this praise is said to be given because Jesus purchased men for God (5:9). This is clearly distinguishing between Jesus and God.

    Consider also that Paul’s comments regarding the reign of Christ provide the proper context for understanding the nature of this worship. 1 Cr 15:27-28 shows God expressly permitting Christ to receive the worship of all things in a sense that is secondary only to the Father himself. Paul tells us that it goes without saying that Christ’s dominion is secondary to God.

    The worship in Rev 5 is part of a bigger picture in which the last Adam achieves the very dominion abdicated by the first Adam. The first Adam was not God, and neither is the last Adam required to be God in order to receive this dominion. I think all of this must be kept in mind when considering Rev 5:13.

    —————————————-

    1Cr 15:27 For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him.

    1Cr 15:28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.

  31. on 21 Nov 2011 at 12:07 amDoubting Thomas

    Marc Taylor,
    It appears to me that you somehow missed the 4 questions that I had asked you in my above message (post #27). Either that or you don’t want to answer these questions, because it would prove your presuppositions are incorrect…

  32. on 21 Nov 2011 at 12:33 amMarc Taylor

    Sarah,
    Neither you or DT has responded to the Lord Jesus as kardiognwstees. That is He is the heart knower of all since He is the proper recipient of prayer.

  33. on 21 Nov 2011 at 12:58 amDoubting Thomas

    Marc Taylor,
    God can give Y’shua any power that he wants to, as a matter of fact Y’shua said that he was given “all power and authority” by his Father. It would just be common sense that this would include being the heart knower of all. Especially since Y’shua is to be the one who will be judging us on judgment day. He couldn’t very well judge us if he couldn’t look directly into our hearts now could he.

    From what I understand you are claiming that Y’shua is or was God or at the very least a God Man. If that is true, then there must have been a point in time that the followers of Y’shua suddenly realized that Y’shua was more than the human Messiah that they and their fellow Jews were expecting. I will repeat a few of my questions for you since you can’t seem to find them above.

    Just when was it exactly that Peter and the other disciples suddenly realized that Y’shua wasn’t the human Messiah that they were expecting???

    Where in the scriptures does Y’shua reveal to his followers that he is in reality God???

    I don’t see anywhere in the scriptures where the followers of Y’shua suddenly realized that he was in reality a God Man, and not the human Messiah they and the rest of the Jews were expecting…

  34. on 21 Nov 2011 at 2:34 amMarc Taylor

    DT,
    Thus the Lord Jesus, since He is omniscient, is God.

    To answer your questions:
    1. He was the human Messiah they were expecting. The Lord Jesus was a man…as well as God.
    2. The Old Testament points to the fact that the coming Messiah is God. For He is the Messenger of YHWH and this Messenger (mal’ak) was prayed to (cf. Genesis 48:16).

    Furthermore the Lord Jesus is God because He has “all power”. If anyone has omnipotence they are by definition “God”.
    Omnipotent: (4) the Omnipotent, God (Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, page 1005, NY: Gramercy Books, c. 1996).

  35. on 21 Nov 2011 at 6:29 amMarc Taylor

    Sarah,
    Christ is both the High Priest (Hebrews 3:1) and the slain Lamb

  36. on 21 Nov 2011 at 6:35 amMarc Taylor

    (Revelation 5:12). So there is no contradiction in Christ being both Man and God as well as the Son of God and God. Since the Scripture declares it it is sufficient.
    ———————————-
    DT,

    Then I heard something like the voice of a great multitude and like the sound of many waters and like the sound of mighty peals of thunder, saying, “Hallelujah! For the Lord our God, the Almighty, reigns (Revelation 19:6, NASB).

    And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth (Revelation 19:6, KJV).

    By conceding that Christ has “all power” this means He is omnipotent. We see from the passage above (from two different versions) that to be omnipotent means the same thing as being “Almighty”.

    So my question for you is:
    Is the Lord Jesus your Almighty?

  37. on 21 Nov 2011 at 10:44 amTim (aka Antioch)

    Marc,

    I believe it is clear that if Jesus is omniscient, it is because he was given that from the Father (Jn 5:19-23 et al). Further, I find this line of argument is not persuasive. If the Bible itself does not have a clear verse anywhere that defines Jesus as God or even God as multi-personal, that makes it very difficult for me to accept Jesus’ deity. In lieu of any clear verses, you are relying on extra biblical definitions of God and omniscience to support your conclusion. Does it not strike you as odd that such a critical fact, a fact required to know for salvation, is not clearly stated over and over again in the Bible itself? To the Jews of the day, ‘Messiah’ was a lesser title than ‘God’, so why did the Gospel writers make Messiahship their thesis?

    Moreover, John 17:3 is explicitly clear that only the Father is the true God. Also, John 14 – the Father is greater than I. That clarifies for me why the Gospel writers made Messiahship their thesis – because Jesus was not God but Messiah. Jesus Messiah is now at the right hand of God’s throne and not on it (Acts 2:33, Hebrews 12:2, Psalm 110).

  38. on 21 Nov 2011 at 1:02 pmSarah

    Christ is both the High Priest (Hebrews 3:1) and the slain Lamb

    He is not fulfilling these roles simultaneously. First he was crucified as the slain lamb. Then his sacrifice was accepted by God, and he was resurrected to become the High Priest (Heb 5:8-9). Two different roles, fulfilled at different times, on behalf of his people and before his God.

    It just doesn’t correlate with the trinitarian idea of father and son simultaneously being the same person.

  39. on 21 Nov 2011 at 6:03 pmDoubting Thomas

    Marc Taylor,
    You said, “So my question for you is: Is the Lord Jesus your Almighty?”

    It is impossible for Y’shua to be the Almighty God. Y’shua clearly states in Matthew 28:18;

    “And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been GIVEN to me’.”

    The person who is receiving “All Authority” is obviously inferior to the one who is giving him “All Authority”. There is ‘ONLY ONE’ Almighty God and He was the one that gave Y’shua “All Authority”!!!

    You still have not answered my questions from above. You just said that Y’shua was a man and God, then you went on to make the false claim that the O.T. was prophesying a God Man hybrid for the Messiah. I will repeat my questions for the third time for you. I can only imagine you are having trouble understanding the questions.

    Just when was it exactly that Peter and the other disciples suddenly realized that Y’shua wasn’t the human Messiah that they were expecting???

    Where in the scriptures does Y’shua reveal to his followers that he is in reality God???

    I don’t see anywhere in the scriptures where the followers of Y’shua suddenly realized that he was in reality a God Man, and not the human Messiah they and the rest of the Jews were expecting…

  40. on 21 Nov 2011 at 6:17 pmMarc Taylor

    Tim,
    Omniscience = God. If Jesus is not God but was “given” omnisicnece then God Almighty created another God Almighty. That though is not what the bible teaches.
    They are not “extra-biblical” defintions of omniscience. Plenty of citations from the TDNT and NIDNTT declare that Christ is omniscient. Now if one chooses to make up their own definitions for the words of the Bible then that is another matter.
    John 17:3 does not cancel out the Lord Jesus being the true God anymore than Jude 1:4 negates the Father being the Christian’s “Master and Lord.
    —————–
    Sarah,
    Christ is always known as the Lamb that was slain. When one converts the Father is appeased because of the sacrifice of Christ. Yes it took place in the past but it is still efficacious at the present moment.
    —————–
    DT,
    Then you have a problem with how words are properly defined.

  41. on 21 Nov 2011 at 7:06 pmDoubting Thomas

    Marc Taylor,
    My questions are simple and straightforward. I will attempt to reword them to make them even clearer for you.

    When was it ‘EXACTLY’ that the followers of Y’shua suddenly realized that he was more than just the “human” Messiah that they were expecting???

    Where in the N.T. does Y’shua reveal to his followers that he is God, or a God Man???

    You and I both know the reason you refuse to answer these simple questions. It is because there is no ‘CLEAR’ place in the scriptures where this happened. If it were true (that Y’shua was God or a God Man), then these things must have happened at some time during Y’shua’s ministry here on earth. Yet according to the scriptures they didn’t!!!

    Like I said in Msg. #31 above, “It appears to me that you somehow missed the 4 questions that I had asked you in my above message (post #27). Either that or you don’t want to answer these questions, because it would prove your presuppositions are incorrect…”

  42. on 21 Nov 2011 at 7:11 pmDoubting Thomas

    Sarah,
    BTW – Marc Taylor has been on the site before. He is a “Oneness” believer. Back then he was just as agile at dodging direct questions. He was very good at trying to make it seem like he was answering a question, when all he was really doing was trying to change the subject…

  43. on 21 Nov 2011 at 7:37 pmMarc Taylor

    DT,
    Who cares when…the fact is we have the NT informing us that Christ is prayed to and worshiped thereby necessitating that He is God.

    Wrong DT. I am a Trinitarian.

    all-powerful (a) = omnipotent (b) = Almighty (c)

    a=b=c

    You agreed that Christ is all-powerful but have a fairy tale dictionary that denies He is the Almighty.

  44. on 21 Nov 2011 at 8:05 pmDoubting Thomas

    Marc Taylor,
    I apologize. I had thought that you said you were a “Oneness Believer”.

    How can Y’shua be Almighty God if he was ‘GIVEN’ all authority by someone else???

    Obviously the person that ‘GAVE’ Y’shua all authority is above him. There is only “ONE” Almighty God, and that is the person that gave Y’shua all authority. I take it you are admitting that Peter and the apostles, and all the other followers, had no idea that Y’shua was in reality Almighty God, or a God Man, or whatever you want to call him…

  45. on 21 Nov 2011 at 9:05 pmMarc Taylor

    DT,
    He always existed as God. During His time on earth He willingly refused to exercise all His power/authority.

    a. Thayer: a most glorious condition, most exalted state; a. of that condition with God the Father in heaven to which Christ was raised after he had achieved his work on earth: Lk. 24.26; Jn. 17:5 (where he is said to have been in the same condition before his incarnation, and even before the beginning of the world) (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, doxa, page 156).
    b. Thayer: of God exalting, or rather restoring, Christ is his Son to a state of glory in heaven; Jn. 7:39; 12:16, [23]; 13:31 sq.; 17:1, 5; Acts 3:13 (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, doxazw, page 157).
    c. TDNT: Elsewhere, however, it is said of the Redeemer during His earthly life that He has laid aside His power and appeared in lowliness and humility, Mt. 11:29; 12:18-21; 2 C. 8:9; Phil. 2:5-8 -> kenow 3, 661, 13-28, cf. the temptation of Jesus, Mt. 4:8 f. par. Lk. 4:5 f. Thus, when the full power of Jesus is occasionally mentioned during the time of His humiliation, it is merely a proleptic fact.
    A new situation is brought into being with the crucifixion and resurrection. The Chosen One seizes the full power which He had from the beginning of the world, Mt. 28:18: “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (5:895, pas – Reicke).

    The Lord Jesus is all-powerful. To be all-powerful is the same thing as being omnipotent. The very first word that defines omnipotent is “almighty” (Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, page 1005, NY: Gramercy Books, c. 1996).
    Therefore the Lord Jesus is Almighty.

  46. on 21 Nov 2011 at 9:27 pmDoubting Thomas

    Marc Taylor,
    I understand that there are Trinitarian scholars that scour the scriptures looking for something (anything) that might support their preconceptions. But, it is clear from the scriptures that Peter, the apostles, and other followers of Y’shua had not idea that he was Almighty God, or a God Man, or a hybrid, or whatever. And if Y’shua’s followers didn’t know this, then how can someone 2,000 years later force read this modern belief back into the scriptures.

    If Y’shua had revealed himself as anything other than the “human” Messiah, that the O.T. was prophesying, and all the Jews were expecting, then certainly this dramatic event would have been recorded in the scriptures by the writers of the Gospels for all to see. The fact that they did not record any such event (I think) conclusively proves that it never happened. Why would Y’shua have kept such a major secret from his followers???

    I’m sorry, but this idea of yours that Y’shua is God makes absolutely no sense to me…

  47. on 21 Nov 2011 at 9:42 pmMarc Taylor

    DT,
    Thayer was most probably a Unitarian. Furthermore, ever wonder why that virtually all (apart from perhaps Thayer) the authors of the lexicons used are Trinitarian? Why is it that? What is it that ALL of them are missing and/or can’t see or think they see? The fact of the matter is that is simply a ruse by Unitarinas in denying how words are properly defined.
    You yourself admitted that Christ is all-powerful. All-powerful and Almighty are the same thing. Now if you or other Unitarians want to attack Webster’s Dictionary like the lexicons that will be another issue that needs to be addressed.

  48. on 21 Nov 2011 at 10:47 pmDoubting Thomas

    Marc Taylor,
    You asked, “…ever wonder why that virtually all (apart from perhaps Thayer) the authors of the lexicons used are Trinitarian? Why is it that?”

    It’s called human tradition. It is an extremely powerful thing. Around the 5th. or 6th. century the Roman Emperor of the time passed a law invoking the death penalty on anyone that dared to speak against the Trinity doctrine. Does this sound like something that a “Authentic” Christian Emperor would do???

    Of course not it violates “all” of the basic Christian teachings.

    You also said, “You yourself admitted that Christ is all-powerful.”

    No I didn’t. I said that Y’shua was “GIVEN” all authority. If he was “all-powerful” he would already of had all authority. The fact that someone else, Almighty God, had to give him this authority clearly demonstrates that he is not “all-powerful”…

  49. on 22 Nov 2011 at 1:54 amMarc Taylor

    DT,
    Yeah ok they are all part of some conspiracy. Get real. Go ahead then…supply some lexicons produced by Unitarians.

    Either way you go in your attempty to deny the Lord Jesus is God will fail. The fact that Christ is all-powerful RIGHT NOW proves He is God. An all-powerful Being is by definition “God”. For you to assert that Christ never had this omnipotence but was later given it proves that you believe that the Almighty created another Almighty.
    What a terrible predicament the Unitarian position is in.

  50. on 22 Nov 2011 at 11:03 amTim (aka Antioch)

    The unitarian position is simple and explicit. The trinitarian position requires belief in a God/Man and a multi-personal Godhead that are not mentioned anywhere in the Bible. Trinitarians have to accept a God that parses words and requires one to be a scholar to discern His triunity. Trinitarians have to wrestle with a God that dies, a God that resurrects Himself, a God that prays to Himself, and a God that punishes Himself for His fallen creation. Trinitarians have to deal with the impossible, a God that has two competing wills and a God that could have sinned. Trinitarians have to redefine the shema, the very creed of Israel. Trinitarians have to theorize why hand picked disciples neglected to mention anywhere when they came to understand that Jesus is God. Trinitarians have to explain why Paul omits the holy spirit in the greetings of his epistles. Trinitarians have to explain why the phrase ‘God the Father’ exists multiple times but ‘God the Son’ not once. And so on…

    I respect your energy and your knowledge on this. But your argument, because it cannot rely on clear, explicit texts, relies on technicalities and the inertia of tradition. Compared to the weight of all the reasons above, a highly debatable, technical argument just doesn’t stack up for me.

    May God’s truth be revealed.

  51. on 22 Nov 2011 at 11:51 amSarah

    Well said, Tim.

  52. on 22 Nov 2011 at 2:15 pmXavier

    MT

    in 1 Chronicles 29, we cannot say with certainty that “worship” in the strict sense is being offered to David. The bowing down may be an act of reverence, appropriate to both the King and God. Indeed, this is likely, given the numerous warnings in the OT that worship of anyone or anything other than God is the gravest of sins (e.g., Exodus 20:5).

    So in summary, even though some people are called “gods” [Ex 4.16; 7.1; Ps 45; 86] or given Deity titles like “saviour” [Judges 3:9; Obadiah 1:21], “King of kings” [Ezra 7.12; Dan 2.37], etc., does not mean their God, or part of some type of plural God, since it would be idolatry, “the gravest of sins”. Yet, this is the very same conclusion you are left with when you make Jesus “God the Son” and not “the Son of God”!

    Furthermore, for anyone else who holds to a “triune God” ask yourselfs…

    If God is 3 Persons, why is blasphemy against only 1 of the Persons considered an unforgivable sin [Mat 12.31-32]?

    If God is 3 Persons, why does knowledge of only 2 of the Persons lead to eternal life and not the 3 [John 17.3]?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z35qcjIqQlA

  53. on 22 Nov 2011 at 6:45 pmShawndra Higgins

    50 – WELL SAID, TIM!!! AMEN!!!! 🙂

  54. on 22 Nov 2011 at 6:46 pmDoubting Thomas

    Yes. Well said, Tim…

    Marc Taylor,
    You said, “For you to assert that Christ never had this omnipotence but was later given it proves that you believe that the Almighty created another Almighty.”

    No it actually proves what I have been saying all along. Y’shua “IS NOT” God Almighty!!!

  55. on 22 Nov 2011 at 6:46 pmMarc Taylor

    And the denial of how kardiognwstees, omnipotent, omniscient and Almighty are defined continues……

  56. on 22 Nov 2011 at 6:49 pmShawndra Higgins

    50 – amen Tim! 🙂

  57. on 22 Nov 2011 at 8:48 pmDoubting Thomas

    Marc Taylor,
    We are not denying anything of the sort. When Y’shua was given “all authority” in heaven and on earth, it is only logical he would have been given kardiognwstees (heart knower abilities), after all he is the one that is going to be judging us on the day of judgment.

    We respectfully disagree with you that Y’shua was in fact omnipotent, omniscient and Almighty. If he was omnipotent he would have been able to raise himself from the dead. Yet the scriptures clearly state (repeatedly) that God (Yahweh) raised him from the dead. Also if he was omnipotent then no-one would have been able to give him “ANY” authority. He would have already had “all authority”.

    If he was omniscient then he would have known the day and the hour of his glorious return. The fact that he didn’t clearly demonstrates that he wasn’t omniscient. And since we don’t believe that he was omnipotent or omniscient and we accept the scriptures that say he was given “all authority” and given the gift of the holy spirit without measure from his God and his Father, and our God and our Father,

    Then of course we are going to come to the conclusion that he is not Almighty, and all powerful, and does have limitations. He cannot do anything on his own, but he can only do things through his God, and his Father. Who also happens to be our God, and our Father.

    Peace and Grace…

  58. on 22 Nov 2011 at 8:58 pmMarc Taylor

    DT,
    You are denying the meaning of kardiognwstees then. It means the same thing as omnisicent and an omniscient Being is by defintion “God”. To say that the Lord Jesus is omniscient/kardiognwstees and then insist that He is not God is a contradiction in terms.

  59. on 22 Nov 2011 at 9:04 pmDoubting Thomas

    Marc Taylor,
    Kardiognwstees (heart knower) does not mean the same thing as omnisicent. Y’shua could know the hearts of everyone, but does that mean he knows how many grains of sand there are in the Universe???

    One thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other…

  60. on 22 Nov 2011 at 9:09 pmMarc Taylor

    DT,
    I cited more than one lexicon that says kardiognwstess means the same thing as omnisicent.

    How words are properly defined say one thing while the Unitarian position (with no lexical support) say another.

  61. on 22 Nov 2011 at 9:47 pmDoubting Thomas

    Marc Taylor,
    If Trinitarian scholars want to believe that kardiognwstess means the same thing as omnisicent, then that is their prerogative. However it doesn’t take a scholar to know that just because someone is a “heart knower”, that this means that they possess “all knowledge” about everything in the entire Universe, and possess “all knowledge” about everything that happened since the very beginning of time (and perhaps even before)…

  62. on 22 Nov 2011 at 10:42 pmMarc Taylor

    Thanks for your opinion but I’ll stick with lexicons and dictionaries to properly define words.
    Very telling that you can’t produce any Unitarian scholar to help you out.

  63. on 22 Nov 2011 at 11:10 pmDoubting Thomas

    Marc Taylor,
    That’s because I don’t get my beliefs from scholars. Y’shua said in Matthew 11:25;

    “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children.”

    Thank-you for your opinion, but I’ll actually stick with what Y’shua says. It has been interesting trying to share some of my ideas with you, but there always comes a point in time that we just have to respectfully agree to disagree, and I think this might be that time. I hope you have a good night and God Bless…

  64. on 22 Nov 2011 at 11:24 pmMarc Taylor

    DT,
    I know you don’t accept how dictionaries and lexicons define words because it shatters your false view of Christ. So instead you choose to make up your own definitions for what words mean.
    —-
    “My name is Alice, but — ”
    “It’s a stupid name enough!” Humpty Dumpty interrupted impatiently. “What does it mean?”
    “Must a name mean something?” Alice asked doubtfully.
    “Of course it must,” Humpty Dumpty said with a short laugh: “my name means the shape I am — and a good handsome shape it is, too. With a name like yours, you might be any shape, almost.”
    “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
    “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
    “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master— that’s all.”

    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Through_the_Looking-Glass
    ———–

    Just like in the fairy tale you make up your own defintion for words. About time to put a fairy tale theology of unitarianism behind.

  65. on 23 Nov 2011 at 12:11 amDoubting Thomas

    Marc Taylor,
    I don’t accept definitions by certain scholars, especially when they defy basic common sense. I pointed out to you why basic common sense indicates that Kardiognwstees (heart knower) does not mean the same thing as omnisicent in msg. #57 and #59 above.

    If you want to ignore common sense and quote children stories that is your prerogative. Like I said, I think it might be time for us to respectfully agree to disagree…

  66. on 23 Nov 2011 at 12:27 amMarc Taylor

    No DT you don’t accept them when your false view of Christ is refuted. Plain and simple.
    I cited more than one source while you have cited a total of zero.

  67. on 23 Nov 2011 at 11:07 amTim (aka Antioch)

    Marc,

    Your argument about kardiognwstees is predicated on Acts 1:24 referring to Jesus, but Sean (post #22) asked you what evidence you have to support they were talking to Jesus and not to God? I’d like to see that support, otherwise, this whole argument is based on an ambiguous verse.

    Separately, you have referred to Gen 48:16 as pointing to Gods multi-personal nature. I thought this was interesting from the Net study bible:

    The Samaritan Pentateuch reads “king” here, but the traditional reading (“angel”) may be maintained. Jacob closely associates God with an angelic protective presence. This does not mean that Jacob viewed his God as a mere angel, but it does suggest that he was aware of an angelic presence sent by God to protect him. Here he so closely associates the two that they become virtually indistinguishable. In this culture messengers typically carried the authority of the one who sent them and could even be addressed as such. Perhaps Jacob thought that the divine blessing would be mediated through this angelic messenger

    So the NET bible (which is trinitarian) accepts the concept of agency. I’m not clear on why you point to this as evidence of the trinity in the OT?

  68. on 23 Nov 2011 at 3:31 pmMarc Taylor

    Tim,
    The fact that the Bible teaches that Christ properly receives prayer in other passages necessitates that He is both omnipotent and omniscient. For it takes omniscience to hear all the prayers being offered (The Lord Jesus must know the motives of the heart/mind behind them) and omnipotence in order for Him to act upon them.

    Here is the evidence that the Lord Jesus is the recipient of the prayer in Acts 1:24, 25.

    And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place (Acst 1:24, 25).

    A. Lord – Kurios
    1. Kurios is the appellation primarily for the Lord Jesus while “Theos” applies primarily to the Father (1 Corinthians 8:6). These appellations can apply to other as in John 20:28 for the Lord Jesus and Acts 4:29 (cf. Acts 4:27) for the Father.
    2. Kurios is applied to the Lord Jesus just before the prayer by Peter in Acts 1:21.
    3. Kurios (without Jesus) is applied to the Lord Jesus in Acts 1:6.
    4. Peter refers to the Lord Jesus as “Lord of all” in Acts 10:36.
    B. Knowest the hearts – kardiognwstes
    1. Only used one other time in Acts 15:8 to “God”.
    2. Kurie su panta oidas – Lord, Thou knowest all things (John 21:17).
    Su Kurie kardiognwsta pantwn – Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all (Acts 1:24)
    3. After stating that the Lord knew his heart Peter would later affirm that the same Lord knew every heart.
    C. Shew – anadeiknumi
    1. Anadeiknumi is used only one other time in the New Testament and that in association with the “Lord” in reference to the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1. I’d like to see where the same author applies anadeiknumi to the Lord in reference to the Father.
    D. Thou hast chosen – eklegomai
    1. The same author of this prayer uses “chosen” in association with the “Lord” only to the Lord Jesus (Luke 6:13 and Acts 1:2). I’d like to see where Luke ever applies “chosen” to the “Lord” in reference to the Father.
    E. Ministry – diakonia
    1. The same author of the prayer in Acts 1:24, 25 where “Lord” and “ministry” are associated records Paul saying that his “ministry” was received from the Lord Jesus (Acts 20:24).
    2. Jesus – Colossians 4:17 – Like in Acts 1:24 the simple “Kurios” is used together with “ministry”. This is the only passage in the Bible where diakonia is used in association with “Lord”. Furthermore “In the Lord” (Colossians 4:17) is found only two other times in the same book of Colossians and in both instances “Lord” refers to the Lord Jesus:
    a. Colossians 3:18 – Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. – The context reveals that the “Lord” applies to the Lord Jesus (Colossians 3:17 and Colossians 3:24).
    b. Colossians 4:7 – All my state shall Tychicus declare unto you, who is a beloved brother, and a faithful minister and fellowservant in the Lord. Notice that it reads, “faithful minister” and “fellowservant” followed by “in the Lord”. Compare this with Colossians 1:7: As ye also learned of Epaphras our dear fellowservant, who is for you a faithful minister of Christ. There are those two expressions again, “faithful minister” and “fellowservant” but whereas in Colossians 4:7 it reads “in the Lord” here it is in reference to Christ.
    F. Apostleship – apostole
    1. I am able to cite two passages where “apostleship” is specifically used in reference to the the Lord Jesus (Romans 1:5 and 1 Corinthians 9:2). I’d like to see any clear cut case it used of the Father.
    —————
    The NET Bible is wrong in their comment. Genesis 48:16 is a prayer – and created angels are neither omniscient nor omnipotent.

    The triple reference to God, in which the Angel is placed on an equality with Ha-Elohim cannot possibly be a created angel, but must be the “Angel of God,” i.e. God manifested in the form of the Angel of Jehovah, or the “Angel of His face” (Isa. 63:9), contains a foreshadowing of the Trinity, though only God and the Angel are distinguished, not three Persons of the divine nature. The God before whom Abraham and Isaac walked, had proved Himself to Jacob to be “the Lord which fed” and “the Angel which redeemed…” (Keil-Delitzsch, 1:383, 384).

  69. on 23 Nov 2011 at 4:58 pmTim (aka Antioch)

    Marc,

    Was Jesus omniscient during his earthly ministry or only when he returned to the Father? Not looking to debate over Mark 13:32, just curious your take since there seems to be some disagreement amongst trinitarians on this.

  70. on 23 Nov 2011 at 6:46 pmMarc Taylor

    Tim,
    I’ll take it you agree that Christ is being prayed to in Acts 1:24, 25. Thus kardiognwstes applies to Him.

    Since He knows the hearts of all this is the same thing as saying He is omniscient (God).
    ————
    Just like not every Trinitarian will agree on some things so too with Unitarians. Some say praying to the Lord Jesus is ok while others say it is a no-no.
    ————-
    His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself.

    NIDNTT: God’s name of Lord also becomes his name (Phil. 2:9 f.; Rev. 19:16 ). Above and beyond this, he can bear a name which he alone knows (Rev. 19:12 ) (2:654, Name – H. Bietenhard).
    Each Person of the Trinity has the ability to relegate any part of His omniscience to the other. God in His being always remains omniscient. Speaking of Christ Revelation 19:12 reads that no one knows His name “except Himself”.

  71. on 23 Nov 2011 at 8:56 pmTim (aka Antioch)

    Marc,

    I think Acts 1:24 is ambiguous, but even if it is Jesus, it is not proof of deity to me. You refuse to accept ‘agency’ which would also explain Acts 1:24 if in fact it is Jesus.

    Each Person of the Trinity has the ability to relegate any part of His omniscience to the other.

    Point me to the verse that states this and I will humbly relinquish my unitarian beliefs.

  72. on 23 Nov 2011 at 10:43 pmMarc Taylor

    Tim,
    1. Only the Father knew something – not Christ nor the Holy Spirit (Matthew 24:36).
    2. Only Christ knew something – not the Father nor the Holy Spirit (Revelation 19:12).
    I offered a quote with citations concerning Revelation 19:12 that has not been countered.
    3. Acts 1:24, 25 so overwhelmingly points to Christ I have yet to have anyone refute the evidence I have supplied.
    To apply kardiognwstees to Christ is so much more than “agency” – of course not one lexicon or commentary was cited that demonstrates this concept concerning this Greek word. What I have previously cited proves that this term means the same thing as omniscience – being God.
    It’s so straightforward and simple and of course backed up but much more than simply my assertion that one has to pretend not to see the evidence or simply ignore it to dogmatically maintain the Unitarian position.

  73. on 24 Nov 2011 at 12:19 pmTim (aka Antioch)

    Marc,

    On Rev 19:12, I did a strongs search on the word ‘oudeis’ and it shows that it is most often translated in the KJV as ‘no man’. Moreover, I see in Matthew 24:36, the same word is used:

    But of that day and hour no one (oudeis) knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.

    This shows support to me that the ‘no one’ in Rev 19:12 is referring to ‘no man’ and just as in Mt 24:36, the Father is excluded from oudeis.

    Moreover, if I accept your argument that the Son knows something the Father doesn’t, this shows the Father is not omniscient and by your own definition, is therefore not God. We both know this is incorrect, so you then have to amend your doctrine with ‘omniscient transference’, an extra-biblical theory. Red flag anyone?

    I will look more into kardiognwstees. I do think your point there is valid but it seems very tenuous to base the deity of Jesus over one word. And I still have all of the other points mentioned earlier where the trinity falls short for me.

  74. on 24 Nov 2011 at 4:05 pmDoubting Thomas

    Tim,
    I don’t understand why you think that Marc’s point about kardiognwstees (heart knower) is valid. Omniscient means unlimited, complete and total knowledge of everything. The word “kardiognwstees” has a very limited meaning. It means one who knows peoples hearts. That’s it, that’s all!!!

    I can understand why Trinitarian scholars who want to try to twist anything they can find to try to support their Trinity doctrine and would make the unsubstantiated claim that “heart knower” means the same thing as omniscient (knower of everything there is to know), but I can’t understand why a Unitarian would accept this definition when this interpretation is obviously biased by their own personal doctrines.

    For arguments sake, imagine God gave you or I the ability to know what was in everybody’s heart. Does that automatically mean that we would know how many grains of sand their are in the Universe???

    Of course not!!! Like I pointed out to Marc above in msg. #59 and msg. #61 above,
    “One thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other.”

    I just don’t understand why you would agree with their warped definition???

  75. on 24 Nov 2011 at 6:20 pmMarc Taylor

    Tim,
    So if it only rfers to “no man” then it doesn’t apply to the Holy Spirit for the Holy Spirit is not a man.
    “No one” is emphatic…it encompasses all here just like the NIDNTT states.
    ———————-
    DT,
    I can understand why you reject how words are properly defiened to defend the Unitarian belief system.

  76. on 24 Nov 2011 at 7:10 pmMarc Taylor

    Tim,

    Another passage that demonstrates the omniscience (and omnipotence) of the Lord Jesus is 1 Peter 2:25. It reads:

    For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls 1 Peter 2:25, NASB).

    The TDNT uses kardiognwstes in defining episkopos (Guardian) – near the bottom.

    TDNT: Christ is He who has the fullest knowledge of souls. He knows every inner secret, as is said of God in Wis. 1:6 and the passages quoted from Philo (-> 614). He is also the One who gives Himself most self-sacrificingly to care for the souls of the faithful (cf. episkopew in Hb. 12:15). It is for this reason that poimen and episkopos are so closely related. The phrase “shepherd and bishop of your souls” carries within it all that is said by Greek speaking Gentiles and Jews about God as episkopos. As suggested by the context, which points us to the deepest mysteries about salvation history, episkopos is thus a title of majesty ascribed to Jesus is His work in relation to the community (2:615, episkopos – Beyer).

    ON PAGE 614: The LXX uses episkopos in the same twofold way as secular Greek. On the one hand it denotes God, and on the other it has the general sense of supervisors in different fields. If in polytheistic belief each deity acts as episkopos over certain men and things, the one God does this far more comprehensively. He is the absolute episkopos who sees all things.

    Thus at Job 20:29 the LXX renders the Hb. El by episkopos. As such God is Judge of the ungodly. The term is here is brought into relation to kurios. Philo has the same line of thought. He calls God ephoros kai episkopos in Mut. Nom., 39, 216. The combination of martus kai episkopos, already used by Homer, is also found in Philo at Leg. All., 3, 43. In this capacity God is the One from whom no wickedness can be hidden. ho twn holwn episkopos is the Omniscient, Som., 1, 91. Thus on Philo’s view Moses finely introduces God in the first chapter of the Bible as “the Father of all and the Contemplator of all that has come into being,” This judgment rests on the statement that “God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good,” Migr. Abr., 135. In Jewish thought this profound understanding of God as the One who sees all things produced the term panepiskopos, which occurs more than once in the Sibyllines: 1, 152; 2, 177; 5, 352.
    In particular, God sees into the human heart. In this respect the LXX links martus and episkopos at Wis. 1:6 Cf. Ac. 1:24, where God is called kardiognwstes. God sees what is concealed in the soul of man, says Philo Migr. Abr., 115. God alone perceives the enthumemata of man, Migr. Abr., 81 (page 614).
    ——-
    Wisdom 1:6 reads:
    For wisdom is a loving spirit; and will not acquit a blasphemer of his words: for God is witness of his reins, and a true beholder of his heart, and a hearer of his tongue.

  77. on 24 Nov 2011 at 7:17 pmDoubting Thomas

    Marc Taylor,
    You said, “I can understand why you reject how words are properly defiened to defend the Unitarian belief system.”

    It is because these definitions (invented by Trinitarian scholars) defy basic logic…

  78. on 24 Nov 2011 at 7:58 pmMarc Taylor

    DT,
    Thanks once again for your opinion.
    I’ll stick with how words are properly defined.

  79. on 25 Nov 2011 at 11:52 amSarah

    Each Person of the Trinity has the ability to relegate any part of His omniscience to the other. God in His being always remains omniscient.

    Fractional omniscience?

    Translated, you’re saying that the things Jesus didn’t know resided with God, and since Jesus is God, Jesus knew all things. Surely you see the circular reasoning?

    You’re also betraying the orthodox claim that each member of the trinity is fully God at all times. No member could lack absolute omniscience at any time whatsoever and still remain fully God.

  80. on 25 Nov 2011 at 12:52 pmTim (aka Antioch)

    DT,

    Valid just means the logic flows from the premises, it does not mean his premises are true. His logic:

    a) kardiognostes = Omniscience
    b) Omniscience = God
    c) Jesus = kardiognostes
    d) Therefore, Jesus is God

    That is a valid argument but it is only true (sound) if a, b, and c are true. On that, I am not agreeing with Marc.
    —-

    Marc,

    The holy spirit is not a man, I’m not understanding your point? Further, your argument (that the Son knew something the Father did not) compromises the omniscience of the Father (who I certainly acknowledge to be God). This is a major red flag for me and your defense is a completely extra-biblical theory of ‘omniscience transference’. What support exists for this theory?

  81. on 25 Nov 2011 at 6:42 pmMarc Taylor

    Sarah,
    Each member of the Trinity is fully God at all times.
    ——–
    Tim and Sarah,
    I supply sourcees for the words I define. Try it nest time. I’ll tell you what. Cite a lexicon/dictionary by Unitarians…if you can find one.
    Tim, Revelation 19:12 is clear….the Son alone knows this name. Now I cited a dictionary to back up my claim. All I get in this discussion is opinion upon opinion.
    I have supplied plenty of evidence demonstrating that Christ is the kardiognwstes which proves His omniscience – the fact that He is God. The most previous citation I posted from the TDNT concerning another passage (1 Peter 2:25) conveys the same thing – the omniscience of Christ. The evidence, the passages, the definitions that prove that Christ is omniscient (God) keep piling up – and believe me there are more but no matter how much credible evidence is supplied some will hold to a false belief concerning His true identity no matter what.

  82. on 25 Nov 2011 at 10:53 pmSarah

    I have supplied plenty of evidence demonstrating that Christ is the kardiognwstes which proves His omniscience – the fact that He is God

    Your case for Jesus’ omniscience isn’t compelling until you can effectively explain: Luke 2:52 (Jesus increased in wisdom), Luke 8:45 (Jesus asked who touched him), and Matt 24:36 (Jesus said he didn’t know when he would return).

    To convince me, you would also need to show that the knowledge Jesus had was inherent and distinct from the wisdom clearly given to him by God (Is 11:2, Deut 18:18, Jn 7:16).

    If you can do these things then I will give your case regarding kardiognwstes more serious consideration. Your only explanation to this point is some sort of relegated subdivided omniscience, which is neither scriptural nor logical.

  83. on 25 Nov 2011 at 11:59 pmMarc Taylor

    Sarah,
    I offer the same answer for your first paragraph as I have done concerning Matthew 24:36 (Mark 13:32). Of course the defintions won’t be compelling for you. Unitarians make up their own defintions for the the biblical words. I have cited at least two passages that demonstrate the omniscience of Christ (Acts 1:24; 1 Peter 2:25).
    Nothing…zero….zilch was offered by way of any kind of citations/sources to rebut the meanings of the words in those two texts.

  84. on 26 Nov 2011 at 12:48 amDoubting Thomas

    Sarah,
    If you want you can cite me and my messages from above… 🙂

  85. on 26 Nov 2011 at 4:06 amMarc Taylor

    DT,
    Let’s have the titles of the lexicon/s and or even a commentary of the Bible that you authored or you can just let us know about your expertise (credentials) in the biblical languages.
    Until that time Unitarians are simply living in a world of made up definitions.

  86. on 26 Nov 2011 at 10:49 amSarah

    DT,

    I hear you 🙂 I do believe we’ve reached an impasse.

  87. on 26 Nov 2011 at 3:22 pmDoubting Thomas

    Marc Taylor,
    Like I have said above, “it doesn’t take a scholar to know if something defies common sense.” The fact is a 10 year old could tell you that kardiognwstes (or the knower of hearts) is not synonymous with the word omniscience (or knower of all things/everything). The first one describes someone with a limited knowledge (knower of hearts) and the second one describes someone with unlimited knowledge.

    If they were synonymous then the word kardiognwstes (or heart knower) would have to imply that this person knew how many asteroids there were in the Solar System, the exact time of the next major earthquake or tsunami, etc… Of course the word implies no such knowledge at all. The fact is that this definition from your Trinitarian scholars is illogical, and defies the common sense that God gave us as His beloved children.

    You however will never be able to see what a 10 year old can see, because you have made these Trinitarian scholars into false Gods. Who are, according to you, infallible and whose word is final and beyond the ability of us non-scholars to even discuss. That is why, I believe, most of the people on this site have decided that it is a waste of time to try to have a reasonable discussion with you.

    Logic means nothing to you, common sense means nothing to you, reasoning means nothing to you. All that matters is what these Trinitarian scholars have said, since they are your Gods. There is a word that comes to mind when I think of someone that believes a person, or a group of people, are infallible, and beyond criticism. That word is naivety. Until you admit that these people are human and fallible, just like the rest of us, then there is really no point in trying to reason with you.

    I do not wish you ill will, or anything like that. I just believe that you need to open your eyes to reality, and stop idolizing scholars. Einstein was considered to be the greatest mind of his century, but since that time they have proven that many of things that he claimed, like nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, have been proven wrong. There is no such thing as an infallible human or group of humans!!!

    Peace and Grace…

  88. on 26 Nov 2011 at 7:10 pmMarc Taylor

    For Christ to knopw every single thing about everybody’s heart is omniscience. For you to deny that is absurd. A 10 year old when wanting to be sure what a word really means would know to consult a dictionary.
    I would like you to open your eyes and stop idolizing your opinion. Incredibly not one Unitarian scholar (are there any?) was cited.
    Yes we reached a point once again where opinions and guesses are embraced while lexicons/dictionaries are tossed. Sadly that is the best the Unitarian position has.

  89. on 26 Nov 2011 at 7:54 pmMarc Taylor

    For those like DT and Sarah who have only opinions concerning kardiogwnstes it will be interesting to see what excuse they will have for denying that Christ is omniscient in these passages (Ephesians 4:10; Revelation 5:6 and Revelation 5:12).

    Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD (Jeremiah 23:24).

    To be able to “fill” the heavens and the earth (the universe) teaches that God is omniscient and omnipresent.
    a. NIDOTTE: In Jer 23:24 the omniscience of the Lord is expressed by the question: Can anyone hide in secret places so that I cannot see him?” (3:1009, r’h – see – Jackie A. Naude).
    b. NIDNTT: God hides himself from men, but man cannot hide from God. God is the Lord who fills heaven and earth (Jer. 23:24) (2:215, Hide – W. Mundle)
    c. TDNT: C. God as the One who Fills the World in the Old Testament and Judaism.
    That there are no limits to God’s knowledge Jer. 23:24 bases on the fact that He is omnipresent. Fig. one might say that His eye reaches to every corner (6:288, plerow – Delling).
    ——————
    Speaking of the Lord Jesus Ephesians 4:10 reads,
    He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things (Ephesians 4:10).
    a. The fact that Christ is able to “fill all things” proves that He is omniscient and omnipresent (cf. Jeremiah 23:24).
    b. Danker: Of Christ, who passed through all the cosmic spheres Eph 4:10 (cp. Jer 23:24) (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, plerow, page 827).
    c. NIDNTT: Citing Ephesians 4:10 it applies “to Christ the OT statement that Yahweh fills heaven and earth. This is the consequence of the thought of Eph. 1:10 (cf. Col. 1:16, 20) that every created thing has its goal in Christ and has no independent existence apart from him” (2:195, Heaven – H. Bietenhard).
    d. TDNT: V. 10 shows wherein the unlimited power of Christ has its basis in His all-comprehensive descent and ascent, which took place ina plerwse ta panta. The context suggests that plerwse is to be taken here along the lines sketched under C. The statement is transferred from God to Christ (6:290-291 – plerow – Delling).
    e. Thayer: Christ, exalted to share in the divine administration, is said to fill (pervade) the universe with his presence, power, activity, Eph. 4:10 (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, plerow, page 518).
    ————————————–
    For who hath despised the day of small things? for they shall rejoice, and shall see the plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel with those seven; they are the eyes of the LORD, which run to and fro through the whole earth (Zechariah 4:10).

    And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth (Revelation 5:6).

    a. TDNT: But the Lamb overcame death (5:5-6) and is omnipotent (-> keras) and omniscient (5:6) (1:341, arnion – J. Jeremias).
    b. TDNT: On the seven horns (5:6) as a symbol of full power, -> keras, and on the seven eyes cf. Zech. 4:10 (the “seven eyes” of God) (2:633, hepta – Rengstorf – SMALL WRITING).
    c. TDNT: In accordance with the symbolical meaning of the number seven (-> hepta) and of the figure of the horn, the seven horns of the Lamb express the divine plenitude of power (3:670, keras – Foerster). —> THIS IS CITED VERBATIM IN THE NIDNTT 3:715 (Strength – H.G. Link, J. Schattenmann)
    d. TDNT: This is even more true of Rev. 5:6, where it is said of the -> arnion that it had “seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.” This is a plain allusion to Zech. 4:10 (3:9) (4:272, lithos – J. Jeremias).
    ———————————-
    Revelation 5:12
    Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.
    a. NIDNTT: In Revelation sophia is praised in two hymnic texts as an attribute of God (Rev. 7:12; cf. also Rom. 16:27); it is also to be attributed to the slain Lamb at his exaltation (Rev. 5:12). The exalted Christ has the same power and wisdom as God (3:1032, Wisdom – J. Goetzmann).

  90. on 26 Nov 2011 at 8:42 pmSarah

    Marc, can Christans be kardiognostes?

  91. on 26 Nov 2011 at 9:37 pmTim (aka Antioch)

    Marc,

    Your case for Rev 19:12 depends on your theory of ‘transferred omniscience’. You have no support for that and without it, you have successfully proved the Father is not omniscient and therefore not God.

    Ephesians 4:10 – Jesus fills the universe (all creation). But isn’t God outside creation (Gn 1:1)? Therefore, Jesus is not God.

    Revelation 5:6 – I read the very next verse, which says that Jesus takes the scroll from Him who sits on the throne. That seems very clear and straight forward that Jesus is not the one on the throne and therefore is not God.

    Revelation 5:12 – Jesus received the power, meaning he did not have it innately. This point has been argued already, it is agency. You don’t accept that but it makes complete sense to me and I did quote you from the NET Bible and Sarah pointed to the story of Joseph/Pharoah as an example of what agency looks like.

    Sorry these appear to be just the opinions of a layperson. I would argue that they are what seem clear to me from scripture. I find it hard to believe on a matter so important as Jesus’ deity that God left it up to scholars to explain to the rest of us what the truth is. But, I will read what I can if you point out my errors – that sharpens me.

    Peace

  92. on 26 Nov 2011 at 10:41 pmMarc Taylor

    Sarah,
    No, because only the Triune God is.
    —————————-
    Tim,
    1. Concerning Revelation 19:12 I already cited the NIDNTT….that is not “no support”.
    2. Outside and within it:
    NIDNTT: God hides himself from men, but man cannot hide from God. God is the Lord who fills heaven and earth (Jer. 23:24) (2:215, Hide – W. Mundle).
    3. Jesus is not the Father. I have no problem with that…and of course you cited no source concerning Revelation 5:6 that would negate or even call into question what I have cited.
    4. The Lord Jesus temporarily chose not to use this power. I too have already written about this – with proper citations of course but not surprisingly they went ignored. Not only that none were cited by any Unitarian.

    Once again how words are properly defined against opinions. These are just the writings/beliefs of Trinitarian scholars Unitarians say but when asked for any citation from any Unitarian scholar/s zero has been given.
    Why?

  93. on 26 Nov 2011 at 10:54 pmMarc Taylor

    From the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia concerning “omniscience”.

    And yes Acts 1:24 is cited….and so is Revelation 2:23 which demonstartes still another passage proving that the Lord Jesus is God.

    http://www.internationalstandardbible.com/O/omniscience.html

    2. Tacit Assumption and Explicit Affirmation:
    Scripture everywhere teaches the absolute universality of the divine knowledge. In the historical books, although there is no abstract formula, and occasional anthropomorphic references to God’s taking knowledge of things occur (Genesis 11:5; 18:21; Deuteronomy 8:3), none the less the principle is everywhere presupposed in what is related about God’s cognizance of the doings of man, about the hearing of prayer, the disclosing of the future (1 Samuel 16:7; 23:9-12; 1 Kings 8:39; 2 Chronicles 16:9). Explicit affirmation of the principle is made in the Psalter, the Prophets, the chokhmah literature and in the New Testament. This is due to the increased internalizing of religion, by which its hidden side, to which the divine omniscience corresponds, receives greater emphasis (Job 26:6; 28:24; 34:22; Psalms 139:12; 147:4; Proverbs 15:3,11; Isaiah 40:26; Acts 1:24; Hebrews 4:13; Revelation 2:23).

    3. Extends to All Spheres:
    This absolute universality is affirmed with reference to the various categories that comprise within themselves all that is possible or actual. It extends to God’s own being, as well as to what exists outside of Him in the created world. God has perfect possession in consciousness of His own being. The unconscious finds no place in Him (Acts 15:18; 1 John 1:5). Next to Himself God knows the world in its totality. This knowledge extends to small as well as to great affairs (Matthew 6:8,32; 10:30); to the hidden heart and mind of man as well as to that which is open and manifest (Job 11:11; 34:21,23; Psalms 14:2; 17:2 ff; Psalms 33:13-18; 102:19 f; Psalms 139:1-4; Proverbs 5:21; 15:3; Isaiah 29:15; Jeremiah 17:10; Amos 4:13; Luke 16:15; Acts 1:24; 1 Thessalonians 2:4; Hebrews 4:13; Revelation 2:23). It extends to all the divisions of time, the past, present and future alike (Job 14:17; Psalms 56:8; Isaiah 41:22-24; 44:6-8; Jeremiah 1:5; Hosea 13:12; Malachi 3:16). It embraces that which is contingent from the human viewpoint as well as that which is certain (1 Samuel 23:9-12; Matthew 11:22-23).

  94. on 27 Nov 2011 at 4:21 amMarc Taylor

    DT,
    In post #61 you wrote:
    If Trinitarian scholars want to believe that kardiognwstess means the same thing as omnisicent, then that is their prerogative.
    ———————
    Well the Mormons are not Trinitarians……

    “I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods,” (Teachings of Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370).

    It might be said that the doctrine of the trinity is the very first of all doctrines in which Latter-day Saint teachings differ from the traditional Christian view.
    http://www.whatdomormonsbelieve.com/2009/05/do-mormons-believe-in-the-trinity/

    ….but they believe that to know all about everyone’s heart means the same thing as omniscience.

    thou only knowest the hearts of the children of men, 2 Chr. 6:30 (Acts 1:24; Acts 15:8).
    http://lds.org/scriptures/tg/god-omniscience-of?lang=eng

    So much for another one of the Unitarian baseless opinions.

  95. on 27 Nov 2011 at 11:42 amTim (aka Antioch)

    NIDNTT: God’s name of Lord also becomes his name (Phil. 2:9 f.; Rev. 19:16 ). Above and beyond this, he can bear a name which he alone knows (Rev. 19:12 ) (2:654, Name – H. Bietenhard).
    Each Person of the Trinity has the ability to relegate any part of His omniscience to the other. God in His being always remains omniscient. Speaking of Christ Revelation 19:12 reads that no one knows His name “except Himself”.

    Is this your support? I understand the first part as from the NIDNTT but the second part (after the reference to Bietenhard) seemed to me to be your opinion. Did I read that wrong? (I don’t have access to the NIDNTT).

    Even if it is the NIDNTT, it seems trinitarian sources are in disagreement because the KJV translates 19:12 as ‘no man’. That would exclude the Father and does not require this ‘omniscience transference’ theory. So which scholars prevail – those who translated the KJV or those that wrote the NIDNTT?

    That highlights another core problem with the theory of the trinity, its proponents disagree on many of the key proof texts.

  96. on 27 Nov 2011 at 2:59 pmSarah

    No, because only the Triune God is.

    Not true. Kardiognostes is a gift given to all who possess the Holy Spirit of God.

    1. Believers will eventually share in Christ’s full nature (which, according to Eph 4:13, is equivalent to a “perfect man”):

    Eph 4:13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;

    2Pe 1:4 by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.

    2. We share this nature by means of the Holy Spirit, who is the discerner of hearts:

    Eph 6:17 and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God…

    Hbr 4:12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

    3. The apostles demonstrated the ability to know the hearts of those they interacted with. Paul also tells the Corinthian church that by their prophesying (a gift of the spirit) they will expose the secrets of an unbeliever’s heart:

    Act 5:3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land?

    Act 5:4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”

    ———————-

    1Cr 14:24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all,

    1Cr 14:25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.

    This shows that the ability to know the hearts of men originates with God, was given in full measure to Christ, and then is given in ever increasing measure to believers through the same Holy Spirit that lived in Christ. As sharers in Christ’s full nature, believers too will become “kardiognostes”. Therefore it cannot be equated with omniscience. And therefore it cannot be used to prove Christ is God.

  97. on 27 Nov 2011 at 6:06 pmMarc Taylor

    No citations from any sources where given…simply your opinion.
    I’ll stick with how words are properly defined and not what I think they should mean.

  98. on 27 Nov 2011 at 6:14 pmMarc Taylor

    Tim,
    Bietenhard was the author of that section from the NIDNTT.
    What I wrote next follows from what he wrote. Many passages declare the omniscience of the Son as do they to the Father. But we know that the Son did not know the day of the end (Mark 13:32) and no one else…no one…knows the name that only Christ knows (Revelation 19:12).
    All English Bibles are a translation. When formulating doctrines on such extremely important issues the original languages (what the words actually mean) must be used.
    As I mentioned earlier even Unitarians disagree (and strongly at that) concerning Christ as well. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are adamant that Christ was never prayed to and is never to be prayed to now but other groups such as the Iglesia Ni Cristo (from the Philippines) will be just as insistent that He was prayed to and can be prayed to now.

  99. on 27 Nov 2011 at 9:09 pmSarah

    I realize my arguments are falling on deaf ears, Marc. My prayer is that you might consider these things and one day come to recognize the truth. I have continued to debate this with you primarily for the sake of any inquiring trinitarians who may be reading this thread.

  100. on 28 Nov 2011 at 1:09 amMarc Taylor

    Sarah,
    Your arguments are not falling on deaf ears but they are falling on the lack of (zero) citations.

  101. on 28 Nov 2011 at 11:39 amTim (aka Antioch)

    The translations are done by persons that are knowledgeable on the Hebrew/Greek, just as are the lexicons. We cite the bible, you require lexicons. Which is higher? Scripture is not sufficient?

    This story has been played out before. We read in Jesus’ day that when ‘the teachers of the law’ put ‘oral Torah’ above ‘written Torah’, some really strange things can become doctrine.

  102. on 28 Nov 2011 at 6:54 pmMarc Taylor

    Tim,
    Yes and those English words of the Bible need to be properly defined.
    You cite your interpretaion (of course without any citations) of the Bible.
    The teachers of the day went by tradition. They didn’t care what the truth was just like Unitarinas don’t care what the words of the Bible really mean.

  103. on 28 Nov 2011 at 10:12 pmDoubting Thomas

    Marc Taylor,
    You said, “Unitarians don’t care what the words of the Bible really mean.”

    Where in the bible do you find the word “Trinity”???

    Where in the bible do you find the word “incarnation”???

    Where in the bible do you find the words “God incarnate”???

    Where in the bible do you find the words “dual nature”???

    Where in the bible do you find the words “God in three persons”???

    Where in the bible do you find the words “3 in 1”???

    Where in the bible do find the word “consubstantial [co-essential]”???

    Where in the bible do find the word “hypostasis”???

    Where in the bible do find the words “eternally begotten”???

    These words are found throughout all the Trinitarian Lexicons and other Trinitarian writings (that you cherish as being infallible), but none of these words are found anywhere in the Holy Scriptures. It is clear that in reality it is the Trinitarians that ” don’t care what the words of the Bible really mean”.

    They just make up their own nonsensical extra-biblical language to prove their doctrines…

  104. on 28 Nov 2011 at 10:22 pmDoubting Thomas

    Ignore the “hypostasis” question above. I guess it is in the “Holy Scriptures” after all, but all the rest of these words certainly are not…

  105. on 29 Nov 2011 at 12:11 amMarc Taylor

    DT,
    There is more than one way to express a truth claim. Not only does the Bible teach that the Father is God but so too concerning the Son.
    And by the way…from post #94:
    DT,
    In post #61 you wrote:
    If Trinitarian scholars want to believe that kardiognwstess means the same thing as omnisicent, then that is their prerogative.
    ———————
    Well the Mormons are not Trinitarians……

    “I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods,” (Teachings of Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370).

    It might be said that the doctrine of the trinity is the very first of all doctrines in which Latter-day Saint teachings differ from the traditional Christian view.
    http://www.whatdomormonsbelieve.com/2009/05/do-mormons-believe-in-the-trinity/

    ….but they believe that to know all about everyone’s heart means the same thing as omniscience.

    thou only knowest the hearts of the children of men, 2 Chr. 6:30 (Acts 1:24; Acts 15:8).
    http://lds.org/scriptures/tg/god-omniscience-of?lang=eng

    So much for another one of the Unitarian baseless opinions.

  106. on 29 Nov 2011 at 12:22 amMarc Taylor

    DT,
    More proof (of course against you) that shows to fully know all the hearts means omniscience:

    Revelation 2:23
    And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

    a. NIDNTT: The kidneys (Heb. kelayot; Gk. nephros, only in plur.; in the NT only Rev. 2:23, citing Jer. 11:20) are frequently mentioned in close connection with the heart. They are – in the metaphorical sense – the seat of the deepest spiritual emotions and motives (Ps. 7:9[10]; 26:2; Jer. 17:10; 20:12; cf. 1 Sam. 24:5[6]; 25:31; leb -> conscience), so secret that men cannot fathom them. Only God is able to search and test them (2:181, 182, Heart – T. Sorg)
    b. TDNT: The designation of God as ho kardiognwstes, “the One who knows the heart,” expresses in a single term (Ac. 1:24; 15:8) something which is familiar to both the NT and OT piety (Lk. 16:15; R. 8:27; 1 Th. 2:4; Rev. 2:23 of Christ), namely that the omniscient God knows the innermost being of every man where the decision is made either for Him or against Him (3:613, kardiognwstes – Behm).
    c. NIDNTT: kardiognwstes is unknown to secular Gk. and to the LXX, and occurs in the NT only in Acts 1:24 and 15:8 and later in patristic writings. It describes God as the knower of hearts. The fact that God sees, tests and searches the hidden depths of the human heart is commonly stated in both the OT and the NT (1 Sam. 16:7; Jer. 11:20; 17:9f.; Lk. 16:15; Rom. 8:27; 1 Thess. 2:4; Rev. 2:23, cf. above OT, 3). This belief in the omniscience of God is expressed succinctly by the adj. kardiognwstes (2:183, Heart – T. Sorg).
    d. http://www.internationalstandardbible.com/O/omniscience.html
    2. Tacit Assumption and Explicit Affirmation:
    Scripture everywhere teaches the absolute universality of the divine knowledge. In the historical books, although there is no abstract formula, and occasional anthropomorphic references to God’s taking knowledge of things occur (Genesis 11:5; 18:21; Deuteronomy 8:3), none the less the principle is everywhere presupposed in what is related about God’s cognizance of the doings of man, about the hearing of prayer, the disclosing of the future (1 Samuel 16:7; 23:9-12; 1 Kings 8:39; 2 Chronicles 16:9). Explicit affirmation of the principle is made in the Psalter, the Prophets, the chokhmah literature and in the New Testament. This is due to the increased internalizing of religion, by which its hidden side, to which the divine omniscience corresponds, receives greater emphasis (Job 26:6; 28:24; 34:22; Psalms 139:12; 147:4; Proverbs 15:3,11; Isaiah 40:26; Acts 1:24; Hebrews 4:13; Revelation 2:23).
    3. Extends to All Spheres:
    This absolute universality is affirmed with reference to the various categories that comprise within themselves all that is possible or actual. It extends to God’s own being, as well as to what exists outside of Him in the created world. God has perfect possession in consciousness of His own being. The unconscious finds no place in Him (Acts 15:18; 1 John 1:5). Next to Himself God knows the world in its totality. This knowledge extends to small as well as to great affairs (Matthew 6:8,32; 10:30); to the hidden heart and mind of man as well as to that which is open and manifest (Job 11:11; 34:21,23; Psalms 14:2; 17:2 ff; Psalms 33:13-18; 102:19 f; Psalms 139:1-4; Proverbs 5:21; 15:3; Isaiah 29:15; Jeremiah 17:10; Amos 4:13; Luke 16:15; Acts 1:24; 1 Thessalonians 2:4; Hebrews 4:13; Revelation 2:23). It extends to all the divisions of time, the past, present and future alike (Job 14:17; Psalms 56:8; Isaiah 41:22-24; 44:6-8; Jeremiah 1:5; Hosea 13:12; Malachi 3:16). It embraces that which is contingent from the human viewpoint as well as that which is certain (1 Samuel 23:9-12; Matthew 11:22-23). (Omniscience, Geerhardus Vos)
    e. EDNT: In Rev 2:23, in a description of God, who examines (or tests) “kidneys and hearts,” i.e., who knows the innermost parts of human beings (cf. LXX Ps 7:10; Jer 11:20; 17:10; 20:12) (2:464, nephros – S. Legasse).

    But what do we get from the Unitarian side?? Opinions piled upon opinions.

  107. on 30 Nov 2011 at 8:36 pmDoubting Thomas

    What do we get from the Trinitarian side???
    Trinitarian opinions piled upon more Trinitarian opinions.

    Just because someone is a scholar, that doesn’t mean that their opinion is in reality a fact…

  108. on 30 Nov 2011 at 9:59 pmMarc Taylor

    To help you…

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lexicon

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dictionary

    In terms of your second comment see the citations above in this post.

  109. on 24 Jul 2017 at 1:29 amBeit HaDerekh (House of The Way)

    My favorite line in the article: “a voice in my head said, ‘How do you know it was good teaching? You’ve never questioned it.'”

    In my life of 70+ years, I started as a Southern Baptist, then decided it would be better to be a Christian. It was during this time that I started questioning “Christian doctrine.” Actually, I had these questions even as a teenager, but I started seeking REAL answers. If we go straight to heaven or hell when we die, why is there a resurrection? We know that Jesus wasn’t born on December 25, so why do we celebrate his birth then anyway? Is God really so cruel that he would condemn us to “millions of years” in eternity just because we didn’t “make a confession of faith” in our allotted 3-score-years-and 10, a finger snap in eternity?

    A few short years later, I started studying the Jewish roots of Christianity. Finding that the fallacies of Judaism were as bad as the false doctrines of Catholicism (both of them have changed and added to Scripture), I became a follower of our Hebrew roots, since our spiritual father is Abraham. Now as Torah-observant, I have completely abandoned the false teachings of evangelical orthodox Christianity as listed in the second paragraph of the article – a pretty complete list of the errors that I and hundreds of millions of others have learned. (Diane didn’t mention “Sunday Sabbath.”)
    I’ll stick to being a follower of “The Way” (Acts 9:2; 19:9,23; 22:4; 24:14,22)

  

Leave a Reply