From Oneness to Unitarian
February 13th, 2010 by Ron S.
A few weeks ago I posted an article (“From Trinitarian to Unitarian“) that was a faith story of a woman that had been a long-term main-stream trinitarian Christian who came to take a long hard look at her beliefs versus the truth of Scripture. After doing so, she changed her beliefs to align with what she actually found in Scripture.
This week I wanted to post a story of another person who happened to have come from a slightly different Christological background. The man’s name is Joel Hemphill. And for those of you who don’t recognize the name, Joel is lifelong Gospel music singer, songwriter, composer, and minister. His distinguished list of accomplishments in the Gospel music industry include being nominated by the Gospel Music Association ten times for song writer of the year, receiving six Dove Awards and being inducted into the Louisiana Songwriters Hall of Fame and in 2007 into the Southern Gospel Music Hall of Fame. Yet Joel was not a Trinitarian. Joel was a Oneness or “Jesus Only” believer all his life. He believed that Jesus was God though meaning that Jesus was the Father and the Son as one person – not three persons in one God (like the Trinity). Despite after nearly half a century in this belief, in 2005 Joel felt God speak to him and to examine his beliefs against the truth of Scripture. In doing so, Joel came to finally see that Jesus was the Son of God – the Messiah, and not God Himself.
I recently conversed with Joel about writing of how he came to change his longstanding beliefs and he suggested I post this letter from his website – Trumpet Call Books (Sean has posted a link to it before for a Unitarian book list). There are also numerous other articles written by Joel on his website including one or two from his recent book – “To God Be The Glory”.
A Letter to a Oneness Preacher
Dear Brother Shell:
Thanks for your kind response to my letter of last week.
However, I am afraid you rushed to judgement on a lot of very important Scriptures that I tried to call your attention to. Scriptures that deserve our most serious consideration for we will all be judged by them at the final day.
In regard to my past teaching let me say that when the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob revealed Himself to me in His word in 2005, I had to humble myself before Him and admit that I had been wrong. Please note that Jesus our savior is never once in Scripture called “the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” He is His son! Jesus was in heaven with the Father when Peter said in Acts 3:13: “The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, hath glorified his Son Jesus.”
Brother Shell, you mentioned two wonderful men from the past, two of my heros, W.T. Hemphill and W.W. Holland. I love the memory of these men, but I must say their theology was seriously flawed. My Dad was “Jesus Only” from about 1916 until his passing in 1981. In fact we buried him with his “Jesus Only” pin. Brother Shell, is that what you teach? Are you “Jesus Only?” I have spoken with some of the leaders of the U.P.C.I. and they no longer teach that doctrine, as it cannot be defended by Scripture.
Regarding the “Apostle’s doctrine,” were they “Oneness” or “Jesus Only?” Did they preach Jesus, to the exclusion of God the Father? What did the apostle Peter preach? Look at his words to the multitude at Pentecost. Yes, this is in Acts chapter two but somehow we never saw it!
“Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God (not God Himself in flesh) among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him…Whom God hath raised up…” (Acts 2:22, 24).“Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand” (Acts 2:33-34).
So Peter preached that Jesus is “a man (an anthropos – “a human being”) approved of God” whom God raised up and seated him at His own right hand.That is exactly where Stephen saw Jesus in Acts 7:55-56. And the inspired writer of Hebrews agrees:
“But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God” (Heb. 10:12).“So then, after the Lord had spoken, unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God” (Mark 16:19).
“It is Christ that died…who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us” (Rom. 8:3).
“If ye be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God” (Col. 3:1).
“Jesus Christ, Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God” (I Peter 3:21-22).
What is Jesus doing while he sits at the right hand of God? He is our mediator, our intercessor, and he sits there “expecting till his enemies be made his footstool” (Heb. 10:13), as the eternal God promised him in Psalm 110:1.Brother Shell, was the apostle John “Oneness” or “Jesus Only?” Jesus had been in heaven with his Father for many years when John wrote the Gospel that bears his name. In John 20:31 he told us why he wrote his Gospel!
“But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God…” (Note: Messiah – not God).“..and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ” (I John 1:3). Note: The word “and” in this verse is a conjunction and means “along with; together with; in addition to.”
“…we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (I John 2:1).
“Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God” (not God) (I John 5:15).
Please do not refer me to I John 3:16 to say that “God” died for us. The word “God” is in italics, and every word in the KJV that is in italics was not in the original. Of course God cannot die, neither can He be tempted!Brother Shell, was Phillip “Oneness” or “Jesus Only?” The confession that he required of the eunuch before water baptism was: “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (not God)” (Acts 8:37).
Was the great apostle Paul “Oneness” or “Jesus Only?” His first sermon after his awesome encounter with Jesus Messiah on the Damascus road was:
“And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God (not God)” (Acts 9:20). “Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 1:7).“Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ” (I Cor. 1:3).
“Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ” ( II Cor. 1:2).
“Grace be to you, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:3).
“Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph. 1:2).
“Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ” (Phil 1:2).
“Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you” (Col. 1:2-3).
“Unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ” (I Thess. 1:1).
“Unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (II Thess. 1:1-2).
“Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord” (I Tim. 1:2).
“Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord” (II Tim. 1:2).
“Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior” (Titus 1:4).
“Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (Phm. 1:3).
Who was Paul’s God? “But to us there is but one God, the Father…and one Lord Jesus Christ” (I Cor. 8:6).
“Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph. 5:20).“But my God shall supply all of your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus” (Phil. 4:19). Note: He did not say “my God is Christ Jesus” but “my God” will do this “by Christ Jesus.”
We are “heirs of God” (our Father), and “joint heirs with Christ” (our brother) (Rom. 8:17).
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph. 1:3).
“That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him” (Eph. 1:17).
“For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph. 3:14).
Yes, Brother Shell, Jesus has a “God,” a higher power whom he fears (Isa. 11:2; Heb. 5:7), whom he worships (John 4:22),whom he prays to and obeys. “I can of mine own self do nothing…if I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true” (John 5:30-31).
“And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape” (John 5:37).“And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter” (John 14:16).
“I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God and your God” (John 20:17).
“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me” (Matt. 27:46)
“Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God… name of my God… city of my God…out of heaven from my God” (Rev. 3:12). Note: Jesus had been in heaven for some 60 years when Revelation was written, but he still refers to God the Father as “my God” four times in this one verse.
“Blessed by the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (I Peter 1:3).
“Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord” (II Peter 1:2).
Jesus Christ our savior cannot be the One Most High God and have a “God” himself at the same time! “He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest…” (Gabriel to Mary) (Luke 1:32).Jesus was not a body full of God, a robot if you please, but a man (a real human being) full of God.
But listen to Paul’s desire for us:
“…that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God“ (Eph. 3:19).
The inspired writer of Hebrews was not “Oneness” or “Jesus Only.” In Hebrews 12:22-24 he lists eight things that Christian believers have come to.
1. “mount Zion.”
2. “heavenly Jerusalem.”
3. “an innumerable company of angels.”
4. “the general assembly and church of the firstborn.”
5. “to God the judge of all.”
6. “the spirits of just men made perfect.”
7. “to Jesus the mediator.”
8. “to the blood of the sprinkling.”
Why did he not combine numbers five and seven? Because they are separate and distinct entities, beings, persons!
Brother Shell, I love you in the Lord and believe you are a true man of God. Therefore I do not wish to debate you in a public forum, which would probably only gender strife. I am willing to meet with you and any ten preachers that you may choose, in any place that you may choose, to discuss this in an atmosphere of brotherly love. You can let me know after you have read thoroughly these Scriptures that I have given you.
Love in Christ Jesus,
Joel Hemphill
Two other Scriptures that contradict the “Oneness” or “Jesus Only” idea are:
John 8:
17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.
1 Tim. 2:
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Mark,
You should measure your arguments before claiming “contradiction.” That is, if you claim something contradicts “Oneness” you should at least read the verse in that light.
God always counts as more than one witness. Even a Notary Public for the state of Texas counts as more than one witness.
How many witnesses is that, Mark? Zero, One, or Two? Could it be that perhaps this is being a little poetic, and recognizing that God doesn’t really need a second witness?
Read that verse carefully. He doesn’t say that “we are two.” Jesus says “I am one that bear witness of myself” and claims the direct backing of the Father.
Joh 5:31-32 KJV
(31) If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
(32) There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.
Jesus just said that he bore witness of himself, so if we use your strict construction, you just proved that his word is not true. That’s the same style of word trick I see used with “God does not sleep.”
What’s the name of that God, Mark? Who was he? That verse says that the one God is Christ Jesus. Please think carefully before you presume to try to “contradict” the “Oneness idea.”
You’re using the same logical fallacy again: you’re using an assumed split between God and Christ into two people, and then you hop around and are happy when you manage to “prove” what you just assumed.
Here’s a couple questions for you, Mark.
1) Does Jesus bring his saints with him when he returns? Yes, or no?
2) Who descends from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel?
And finally, if Jesus is calling himself Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, and the beginning and the end, the Almighty, and saying that he shall be their God, and be a father unto them, but if
they are really two, then…
… then you’ve got a problem here, because Jesus is calling himself LORD in the language of the Old Testament prophets, as in “I am the LORD, and beside me there is no other God.”
* * *
I’m not sure that I’d want to use Joel Hemphill as an example of a “Oneness-Unitarian” crossover. He says that God himself personally appeared to him, and this is why he changed his beliefs. I’m always really skeptical when someone says something like that.
Joel Hemphill wrote:
http://www.trumpetcallbooks.com/index.html
By the way, his comment concerning his critique of the KJV italics of John:
The entire chapter is about “the love of the Father” and that very sentence is about “the love of God” – silencing the italics doesn’t help there.
Besides, it’s interesting that 1 John 3:1 uses the same phrase:
… because it knew him not.
which is awfully reminiscent of …
Joh 1:10-11 KJV
(10) He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
Again, I’m a bit suspicious of people claiming to have had direct visits from God. That quote was from his own website.
-Andrew
One of the things I like about listening and reading Mr. Hemphills material is that it is saturated with Scripture. It’s as though he doesn’t have to explain a whole lot, but just allows the Scripture to speak by itself.
If anyone has not listened to his series where he discusses these issues you really need to do so. You can find them at:
[url]www.christianmonotheism.com[url]
under the category “Joel Hemphill.”
I find Joel’s letter rather clear and easy to receive. So often in this world people try to muddy the waters and cloud up everything. I found Joel’s letter refreshing.
Andrew, when Jesus spoke concerning himself he was not speaking of himself but by the spirit of God that was in him.
Jesus spoke of things concerning himself by the holy spirit of God and God gave witness to us that Jesus was true by many proofs.
John 8:18
I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.
Jesus was required of God to preach the things pertaining to the kingdom of heaven. Some of the most important parts of that knowledge is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
Christ was one witness of these facts and God also witnessed to the same truth. God and Jesus as two witnesses agreed in one
Spirit concerning these things.
I’ve heard some say that in the Hebrew mind that the Messiah was God, but I’ve noticed that Peter was of a somewhat different mind
when he confessed Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God. Let’s remember that there were unbelieving Jews who could not understand the Lord’s speech, were not of his flock, were of their father the devil, and their witness was that he being a man made himself God. I assume this to mean that in their understanding, Jesus was representing to them by his spoken words that he being the Messiah was God, a somewhat different idea than the Messiah being the Son of God, the Christ. They were even ready to stone him for what they either pretended to hear, or for what they could not understand being without faith in the matter in question.
How often do we hear what comes out of the mouth must have been in the mind? If it was in the heart, it was in the mind, and came out of the mouth.
It seems to me that in a believeing Hebrew’s mind, the Messiah would be as God is, that there are many scriptures that bear witness of the Messiah in the scriptures which also apply to God himself, but that the Messiah would come as the Son of God.
If my premise is true it should show up in the scriptures that the believeing Hebrews accepted. If it shows up in their writtings are we wrong to say that the believing Hebrews had it in their mind?
What saith the scripture concerning this?
I refer you to the prophecy of Proverbs 30. Please read verses 1-6.
The prophecy speaks of the Son of God, and there are others which also speak of the Messiah that way. In the believing Hebrew mind the Messiah is the Son of God.
Psalm 45:6
Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever: the sceptre of thy dingdom is a right sceptre.
This is speaking of Jesus whom God has commanded us to worship.
The scripture calls them gods who have received the word of God,
(see Psalm 82:5-8) and Jesus reminded those of this when his defense of what he had told them concerning himself and who he was. He told them he is the Son of God, the same thing he had been saying all along, rather than what I have heard men say was “of the Hebrew mind, that the Messiah is God.”
When I worship him as God, calling him my God, you are not authorized to say to other men that I am saying that Jesus is God.
I do not give you such authority to twist my words around. I tell you this in Jesus’ name. If you do this you do it on your own and it is sin, and my God (the Lord Jesus) will judge you for it if you do not repent should you be found doing so.
Andrew, I do not consider you an authority on what the Hebrew mind is.
There are many scriptures that apply to God and also to Jesus as well. That’s one reason we may worship Jesus as we worship God. Doing so in no way violates any commandment of God. In worshipping Jesus we do worship God when our worship of the Lord is right. We have been told to kiss the Son. (Psalm 2)
I say again that though I may be found worshipping Jesus as God, I say there is a distinction between Jesus and God. In my mind, Jesus is the Son of God, and I believe I have the spirit of God.
Great post, Mark! Good reasoning indeed, and accurate hermeneutics!
The separateness and inequality between Jesus and Yahweh are simply overwhelming. The anthropomorphisms used, the confessional statements, esp in Acts, all testify to this undeniable fact.
Then again, Marx said, religion is the opium of human society. It is sad that erroneous beliefs would even have people resort to illogical and fallacious arguments to support the error.
Great post, again.
Jaco
A simple question to all the Oneness believers.
The bible repeatedly says how Jesus would get up early every morning while it was still dark to pray. There are also other references to Jesus praying like Luke (22:31-32) and how just before his crucifixion he prayed earnestly (3 different times) to have the cup taken away from him so he would not have to drink from it.
If Jesus was actually God. Who was God praying to?
to listen to Joel Hemphill’s teachings on christianmonotheism.com for free click here or you can look at his profile which has some free downloads at the 21st century reformation website.
Doubting Thomas wrote:
When I send myself an email, who am I writing to?
When I put a key under a doormat and I am the only person that knows the location, who am I giving the key to?
When I read something, and think it over in my mind, and consider the options, and know that there are choices, whom am I trying to convince, whom I trying to persuade, and who makes the ultimate decision?
Your question presumes that God is very small, and does not even allow him the complexity of thought that we possess as mortal men.
Normal people “pray” to themselves all the time, although they normally don’t think of it like that.
If you really (sincerely) want to challenge “Oneness” you’re going to have to honestly try to understand their position to come up with any sort of valid challenge. The danger of this is that you might find that it actually makes far more sense than you might have wanted to admit before.
So I have a simple question for Doubting Thomas:
If an iceberg is formed out of the ocean, and it is separated from the ocean, can it melt back into the ocean from whence it came, or do you now have two oceans?
And also, what was the iceberg before it was formed into ice? And wouldn’t it be a rather hasty limited presumption to dictate that an ocean must remain liquid at all times and in all places?
-Andrew
Andrew,
When you talk to yourself do you sometimes think you might need medical assistance?
[Couldn't help meself]
Assessment of the latest post:
Circular reasoning: assuming identity
Faulty analogy: Wrongly comparing meaningful and sincere praying in the case of Jesus with needlessly sending an email to oneself.
Placing a key under a doormat as NOT the same as supplicating God for divine intervention while sweat as blood flows from a face.
The All Wise God needn’t painfully negotiate in His mind what best strategies to take within His limited ability. Again false analogy and circular reasoning.
Your assessment of Jesus’ experiences on earth absurdly reduces it to onerous and aimless mind-games.
Begging the question: assuming that Jesus’ cases prayerful agony were a day-to-day pastimes usually performed by “normal” people. Jesus was not generic or “normal” person. He was the Only-begotten son of God.
False analogy again. THe analogy assumes the appearance of Jesus a mere change of substance or essence from one form to another. No such thing. Jesus and Yahweh are described in terms of their person, not substance.
You’re still left to prove this against overwhelming evidence. I needn’t know every little sign of falsification to know if a dollar note is authentic or not. I only need to study and accurately know the signs of an original…
Jaco
Andrew Patrick (msg. 9)
You asked, “If an iceberg is formed in an ocean, and is separated from the ocean, can it melt back into the ocean once it came, or do you now have two oceans?”
There is no evidence in the bible that when Jesus ascended into heaven he melted (and no longer existed as a separate entity) and became one with God. It actually repeatedly says that Jesus is now seated at the right hand of God and when he returns it says again that he will be seated at the right hand of God.
How can Jesus be seated at the right hand of God if in reality he melted together with and is now actually God (one person)?
You also asked, “What was the iceberg before it formed into ice?”
Before his conception Jesus was just a promise (a prophecy) spoken of and referred to as the Messiah by Moses and all the prophets that followed Moses.
Moses said that from among you someone like me will arise and he goes on to say that he will be called the Messiah. From among you means he was human he didn’t say from among God will arise.
To emphasize this Moses said that this someone (or Messiah) will be like me (Moses). I think it is obvious that Moses was not God so for the Messiah to be like Moses he must be human like Moses was otherwise this prophecy makes no sense.
Andrew
your arguement that siiting at the right hand of God shows he is God would also make him a throne. this shows without a doubt they are 2 seperate beings
Hebrews 8:1
Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
Hebrews 12:2
Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Thomas
very good reply on his comparision
Dear Doubting Thomas,
cc Robert,
Doubting Thomas wrote:
That all depends on what you mean by “entity” – Jesus was never a different person.
Verse 31 demonstrates that this was certainly “blasphemy” and they understood this as meaning “I am God” according to the “Hebrew understanding” of that day.
In my analogy of the ocean, the ocean was never “two oceans” but was always “one ocean.” An ocean is usually liquid, but it can manifest in the realm of solids as ice, and some people might think of the ice as a separate entity, but it is not.
I thought I heard someone protest that an ocean would have to turn all of its water into ice to “manifest in the ice” but that’s a silly argument that fights against the real-world analogy.
This is not even such a wild analogy, because “spirit” would be likened to water borne on the wind, as in mist, fog, spray, humidity… which is very similar to the analogy that Jesus used to explain spirit to Nicodemus.
There is evidence that the distinctions “melted away” following his ascension: Jesus started appearing in different forms they had never seen before, his disciples worshiped him (Matt 28:9), he breathed the Holy Ghost (John 20:22), and Thomas confessed that he was “My Lord and my God.” (John 20:28).
Additionally, please don’t tell me that there is “no evidence” of these distinctions “melting away” when this is an existing topic on this very web site, discussing the “problem” of blurred distinctions between God and Christ.
(click below for the link)
Tim wrote Alpha and Omega thread Nov, 2008:
Tim was Unitarian, and both he and Sean were willing to admit that there were difficulties with “blurred distinctions” here.
It seems to me that you’d be more willing to admit the “blurring problem” if I wasn’t here with a Oneness solution.
Also, I once was talking with a “traveling” Unitarian (named Jerry) who was caught flat-footed when I read from Revelation, and asked him to identify the speaker, because when he heard the names of God, he said “That’s God” and then within a couple verses the speaker also identified himself as our Christ.
He went and researched in his books (Anthony Buzzard, etc) and he admitted to me later that day that the answers were not satisfactory. (However, 24 hours later he simply declared that I didn’t have the Holy Spirit, which explained why he was unable to answer, I guess.)
So please don’t tell me that there’s no “melted distinctions.”
“Perceived” distinctions are “perceived.” It is useful for God to allow us to perceive him with different titles, including LORD of hosts, Almighty, Father, Shepherd …
If the LORD is our shepherd, can there be another “chief shepherd” in 1 Peter 5:4? (see also 1 Peter 2:25, John 10:11-14). Although “shepherd” is used in scripture, it’s never used as a title for anyone else.
Likewise, there is a “perceived” distinction between Judge and Mediator, but no one her is going to argue that means two different persons, are they? Hopefully everyone here will admit that these are normally opposed roles. (see 1 Timothy 2:5, 2 Timothy 4:1).
So yes, there is a “melting away” of the distinctions, which explains why Jesus is invoking the Hebrew titles of divinity in the book of Revelation, and also how come he is revealed as the one who sits on the throne at the very end of the book.
Please try to be open-minded: the goal is not supposed to be “defend our doctrine no matter what” but to “prove all things” and “search the scriptures” as noble Bereans. To do this, you have to be willing to fairly consider that you might have been wrong.
Take care,
-Andrew
Andrew Patrick
I would like to fairly consider what you are saying but to be quite honest in order to do that I would first have to understand what it is you are trying to say.
None of this seems to have any relevance to anything that I posted but I must admit that I don’t really understand what it is you are saying.
In your past attempts at obfuscating the obvious I was at least able to make sense out of what you were saying. I think I will let someone else try to make sense out of this obfuscation of my very simple message that I sent to you.
Andrew said:
This he uses to show that Jesus=the Father. Well, brothers, according to Andrew, I am God! You are God too! Everyone of us is God! Because, John 17:21 says:
There you have it…(BTW, if Jesus and Yahweh are literally one, why the plural us…?) Congratulations, brothers!
But wait! There is more! Look at who Andrew has to add into his pantheon of multipersonal God: next candidate, Satan…
Congratulations, Satan!
Last, but not least, is our next candidate…Mary, the mother of Jesus…That is, the mother of God!!! But why??? This is why:
Congratulations, Mary!
There you have it, folks! According to Andrew’s arguments, God has to be called Yahweh-Yehoshua-Satan-Miryam-Malachim-Limmudim…and counting!
There are many more candidates for this position of Almighty God. Search the Scriptures to look for them!!!
Jaco
Dear Jaco,
Congratulations, Jaco, for your display of excellent sophistry.
Why not continue with this game? What about the servants who had their ears pieced with an awl? Is that how they manage to serve their master “for ever” – because as God they now have immortality?
Deu 15:17 Then thou shalt take an awl, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise.
But let’s cut through all that baloney:
1) The Jews knew what Jesus meant, and that’s why they took up stones to stone him.
2) The LORD moved David by sending Satan to stand up against Israel. This is a similar method of operation as he dealt with Job, allowing Satan to strike against Job.
By the way: the book of Job also records a literal conversation between the LORD and Satan, which would suffice as a proof of “two different persons” – a proof which is quite lacking in the “Jesus is not God” argument.
3) Since obviously more than one person has been “pierced” in the history of the world, maybe you should let the Bible explain its own terms, instead of being so quick to mock?
Rev 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
Why do you think God bothered to put those words in Zechariah, if they didn’t mean anything? You’re actually mocking God for using a term like “pierced” as identification.
-Andrew
First of all, guys, can we tone down the sarcasm? It doesn’t demonstrate God’s love very well.
And yet it says that God did it 2 Samuel. If you can understand this, why do you have a problem with angels or other agents doing and saying things that in other passages it says God did?
It’s hardly lacking. If a conversation “suffices as a proof of two different persons” then every time Jesus prayed he demonstrated that he was not God.
Mark wrote:
By definition, prayer is not a conversation. It’s a petition, one-way. The LORD and Satan talked back and forth, just like Jesus and Satan talked back and forth.
You’ve got a classic “Superman and Clark Kent” problem with the LORD God and Jesus Christ.
1) Yes, Jesus prayed – but this was not a conversation. Jesus prayed for the benefit of the people around him. He even said that it was redundant – see John 11:41-42. By his own words, he didn’t actually need prayer.
2) Yes, Jesus is set down at the right hand of the Father. But again, this is not a literally seat and not a literal hand, but rather an expression of exaltation and power, and he spoke to the high priest at his trial. It’s an obvious metaphor. Again, there is no vision of two people interacting.
3) Yes, the Lamb (with seven horns and seven eyes, even!) is in the midst of the throne of God, and receives the book from he who sits on the throne! It says that this lamb died for our sins, so surely this is Jesus.
But again, in that part of the vision you never get to see the one who sits on the throne. It remains blurry: there’s no name given. But read a little further, to the end of the book, and finally He who sits upon the throne is revealed, as Alpha and Omega – and that Alpha and Omega is identified as “I Jesus.”
Speaking very plainly, Mark, if you had any such evidence as a conversation between the Father and Jesus, that would be good evidence to consider that might be two different people.
However, it wouldn’t do a thing to controvert that Jesus is God. All it would do is be the first necessary point in a case for “God is more than one person.”
Let’s consider a similar question: are Clark Kent and Superman one person, or two persons?
1) Superman has laser vision. Clark Kent needs glasses. Therefore, Clark Kent cannot be Superman.
2) Superman was flying through the air. Clark Kent took a picture of Superman. Therefore, Clark Kent cannot be Superman. Or was that Peter Parker submitting pictures of Spiderman that I’m thinking of?
3) Superman wears a spandex suit. Clark Kent wears normal clothes. Of course, they’re different people.
4) Superman leaves a voice message for Clark Kent at the office. See! a conversation! That proves they are two different people!
5) Clark walks to work. Superman flies through the air. If Clark were Superman, he wouldn’t have to walk to work.
And that’s about 90% of the style of argument I’ve seen presented as Unitarian “proofs” that Jesus cannot be God. “God is invisible. People saw Jesus. Therefore Jesus is not God.” When stupid arguments like these are put forward and expected to be convincing, it really doesn’t indicate that you have a strong position.
Very simply, there isn’t anyplace (and I’ve looked) where you can prove “two persons” with Jesus and the Father. The “Jesus prayed” challenge seems plausible at first, except that it’s not a conversation, and regardless, we “pray” to ourselves when we mull things over in our own minds.
In other words, your best proof (which I considered long ago) isn’t a proof at all. If you have anything more convincing, present it.
Please note that all of your arguments that I’ve seen presented so far depend that “vagueness” is supposed to count as an argument against Oneness. In other words, you expect to win “by default” if it seems “sufficiently vague.” The reason that doesn’t work is twofold:
1) The whole method of Jesus coming to earth was incognito, or else they wouldn’t have dared crucify him. Thus, “vagueness” is a worthless argument.
2) Because Jesus comes out plainly in Revelation and says “I am the beginning and the end” in the language of the Old Testament prophets where he said “I am the LORD your God, and beside me there is no other.” This is a absolute positive identification.
Take care,
-Andrew
Andrew, thank you for answering these questions. Now, could you proceed the way you answered me?
Now, all these explanations you gave are actually valid, Scriptural explanations! EXCEPT when we enter the permafrost of a made-up and deluded mind.
Following you very reasoning (this time correct), Yahweh has never been seen. His angels (sh’liachim) were addressed as Yahweh, since that was the usage of the time. This is the Scriptural answer. Instead of resorting to double standards, Andrew, apply the very same argument in the case of the angels. If not, using your arguments consistently would have ourselves, Mary, even Satan be God. If not, then not Oneness either…
Repeating an argument exposed and refuted amounts to argumentum ad nauseam ad infinitum. Merely repeating an erroneous argument doesn’t argue for the truth, sorry. Your Jesus’-prayer-means-nothing attempt amounts to reductio ad absurdum.
Jaco
Re Jaco:
Jaco wrote:
I said nothing of the sort. It’s like you didn’t pay any attention to my actual words, and just decided to pretend that I said something completely different.
There are plentiful biblical instances where God has been seen in one manifest form or another – how do I know? Because the Bible tells us so. No man has truly seen God in total, in glory, in the capacity that requires incorruption, but God has made plenty of appearances… (unless Genesis, Exodus, etc… have also made the list of books that we cannot believe?)
What part of “Revelation reveals the One who sits upon the throne as Jesus” is so difficult to understand? What part of “I am the first and the last, the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end” makes you think that this means “I am just a lackey of the LORD?”
You’ve tried so hard to make God “invisible” that he no longer exists. Does the sky boom “I am the LORD?” Nah… that couldn’t be the LORD…
This “Unitarian” theology demands that it is impossible for God to manifest, speak, or appear – because no matter what he could say, you would not believe him. There are no words that you would accept as true, and no signs that you would accept as legitimate, and no names that you would not shuttle off as just being “borrowed” by his “representative”
And THAT is absurd.
Jaco wrote:
If you won’t believe Jesus’s own words explaining why he prayed, why should you listen to anything?
-Andrew
Andrew said:
Since when, friend, is prayer not conversation? Where in the world has anyone heard such nonsense! If prayer is not conversation, then whatever Jesus did, was not praying, and thus is Scripture lying to us…according to you. Only the Hindu-Buddhist-Taoist-Shintoist-New Age world presents prayer as introspection of some sort. That is not Scriptural! Jesus communicated with his Father, especially in John 17. Heb. 5:7 says:
This scripture refutes your conjecture completely. You’re using sophistry in your John 11 reference. The reason Jesus prayed aloud was, not only to have the crowd see that he is the one performing the miracle, but that he is the one that was sent out (sh’liach) from the Father. The “prophet like Moses” would have to be, not only a powerful prophet, but one SPEAKING AND ACTING IN YAWHEH’S NAME.
He only said that in this specific instance, regarding the miracle he was about to perform. He didn’t say he didn’t need prayer. He said that he said it out loud for the people’s sake, “that they may believe that thou hast sent me.”
Of course his prayers were conversations. As Jaco pointed out, he poured his heart out to His Father. And in one instance, His Father answered him audibly:
John 12:28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.
You said:
So will you consider it then?
That is what’s known as a false dichotomy. You’re assuming there are only two possibilities: either Jesus is God, or God is more than one person. But there is a third possibility – Jesus and God are two separate persons, who share many characteristics and attributes because Jesus is God’s Son, yet there are several clear distinctions between God and His Son. I believe this is what the Bible teaches.
Jaco wrote:
A prayer ceases to be prayer when someone starts talking back to you, and you talk back and forth. Look up the word in a dictionary: it will say it is a petition, a request, or a communion: NOT a conversation.
Look up “prayer” or look up “conversation”
from dictionary.com
Argue with the dictionary, Jaco.
1) It’s not my responsibility to understand how God can operate in two places or two states at the same time. He’s God.
2) It is my responsibility to believe clear statements when Jesus declares that he is God, that he is the LORD, and to believe the apostles, and to pay attention to the prophets and the psalms and the writings that have declared this from the beginning of scripture.
If it wasn’t for the hundred-times-overwhelming evidence to the contrary of your theory, your “prayer” question would be a valid consideration.
But you can’t get past that Jesus repeats, over and over, “I am the God of the Old Testament named YHWH” in Revelation. That’s the ultimate level of evidence, God has spoken, case closed. It’s your theory that must declare that Jesus was a liar.
The only participant with a valid excuse is Thomas, because he doesn’t believe Revelation is a valid canonical book.
You are fooling yourselves when you think you’re “thinking like Hebrews.” If you really thought like Hebrews, you’d have “Messiah is the LORD God” from Genesis 5 and “the Son of God is God” from Luke 3.
The truth is that you are not Hebrews, you are 21st century Gentiles that willingly disregard every hint, evidence, proof, and absolute statement of deity because of a circular reasoning that “it couldn’t possible say that, because that’s not how Jews thought.”
(and it might be that I’m actually thinking of what Mark said here, and if so, please don’t take it personally: but you guys act as a team, anyway…)
Whom do you use as evidence? You specifically find modern Jews who have every reason to deny Jesus as their Lord and their God, the same Jews that Paul says have a veil over their hearts, being unable to understand when Moses is read to this very day.
Jaco wrote:
Your logic is so circular.
The New Age tradition considers that every person is God, thus would consider introspection as prayer in the divine sense of the word.
And even as recent as yesterday and today,
1) I sent myself email,
2) I petitioned myself for something I wanted (which I denied),
3) And while praying (to God) my thoughts wandered… so who was I talking to then? (answer: myself)
When a character in a Shakespearean play gives a soliloquy, is he practicing a New Age Eastern religion?
1) He is “talking to himself” – though not having a “conversation”
2) It is done for the benefit of the audience of the play
Finally, when you’ve figured out how to exist in two places at the same time, both omnipotent and subject to the flesh, then you might have a right to talk. Until then, your “prayer” argument remains a very shaky point, true sophistry, only designed to sound good on the surface, but which has no true bearing on displacing direct identification of “I am the beginning and the end.”
-Andrew
P.S. If you really are sincere about this subject, why don’t you try something constructive, like making an outline of all the different types of proofs and evidences on both sides? Don’t bother naming the proofs, just name the categories of proofs, and label the types according to weight.
Dear Mark,
Considered: that is not a conversation. That’s “special effects” where the voice from heaven is heard for the benefit of those within hearing.
That was a good try, though (and I mean that without sarcasm.)
[and just to demonstrate that I have thought this out before...]
Probably “The LORD said unto my Lord…” would be the closest thing hinting at “conversation” if you were looking for this type of evidence. However, that could also be viewed as a figure of speech, as a metaphor, for the purpose of the prophecy.
In real life, I could say “the park leader spoke with the head referee” when I know that I’m both people (rather, positions would be a better word.)
When Job spoke with his friends, I would call that a clear-cut conversation that showed there were multiple people. Likewise, when God spoke with Job, or God talked with Satan, or Satan talked with Jesus. Those are all clear-cut in the normal mode of conversation.
I’m being honest when I’m saying that the “prayed” argument is not sufficient proof. It’s a valid question, but it’s vague. It has to be weighted against all evidence. If it was the only evidence, then that might be a different story.
Mark wrote:
None of your proofs have done anything to disprove that Jesus is God, but they have tried to argue that Jesus is a different person.
For the purpose of discussion, I’d like to use Justin Martyr as an example…
Justin Martyr was talking with a Jew named Trypho, and from his own scriptures (the Hebrew, not the LXX) he was able to prove to him that Jesus was the promised Messiah and the LORD of the Old Testament. To this Trypho (the Jew) agreed.
However, there were two reasons why Justin thought that there was another “God” out there somewhere, who was practically invisible and unknown, in the background:
1) because Jesus prayed, and
2) because when the LORD spoke with Abraham, it said the LORD rained fire and brimstone down from heaven (Gen 19:24)
(By the way, I think Justin may have been even using a LXX version here that said “God” rained fire from heaven, even though my KJV says “LORD” in that place…. )
Now, to me, his reason (2) seems absolutely silly. Why can’t the LORD rain down fire from heaven while he’s talking to Abraham?
Yet Justin didn’t have a good answer for the “prayed” question, although he was able to prove to a second-century Jew that Jesus was the LORD of the Old Testament. But that was the only reason he had for thinking that there was any other LORD!
See, I’m not saying that it hasn’t confused people before.
The problem is that it’s not a “proof” – it’s only a “casting doubt” question, one that says “how can that be?” And the “how can that be” can be answered by means of real-world analogies, which then removes the doubt.
And finally, absolute statements are the ultimate level of proof. If your “divine agency” model held true, you would never have someone say “see that you do it not, worship God” because then any prophet or any angel could say “I am God” and “I am the LORD your God.”
The fact that there are plenty of instances where a messenger denies being God is actually evidence that “I am the LORD your God” and “I am the first and the last” might actually mean exactly what it sounds like.
Please admit this: if you had even one instance where Jesus said “I am not God, do not worship me, worship God” you would be as happy as seals on ice, and with good reason. If Jesus said “I was not there in the beginning” you’d have this argument wrapped up, and I don’t believe for a second that you wouldn’t hesitate to use such a scripture (if it existed.)
Rather, there’s a lot of scriptures that say just the opposite: Jesus is the first and the last, Jesus is identified as the Word, the Word was in the beginning, and was God, Jesus created all things, Jesus was there when Satan fell as lightning from heaven, and “I am” before Abraham.
So, consider that if you would consider a single “I am not the LORD” statement to be indisputable proof, isn’t it a little rough that Revelation has so many “I am the LORD” statements from Jesus?
Take care,
-Andrew
If you want to define prayer as one-way communication, fine. For the sake of argument, let’s say it is. It is still “communication.” And “communication” by definition involves two or more people.
So let’s not split hairs. If it says Jesus prayed to God, then he was talking to somebody else that wasn’t him.
And you still have the instance where God responded audibly to him (John 12:28).
“Special effects”?????!!!!!! Are you kidding me? So God wasn’t really talking to Jesus?
There is no difference. If Jesus is not God, then he is a different person.
There is not “hundred-times-overwhelming evidence.” I demonstrated in “Who Is Messiah? (Part 2)” that only two verses unquestionably call Jesus God. And whether you like it or not, people can be called “God” when they are exalted representatives of Him. I showed that from the Scriptures in the same article.
There is not ONE verse that says “I am the God of the Old Testament named YHWH” in Revelation.
There is not ONE verse in Genesis 5, or anywhere else in the OT, that says “Messiah is the LORD God.” He is the anointed of the LORD, the servant of the LORD, a prophet like Moses from among the brethren of Israel.
There is not ONE verse in Luke 3 or anywhere in the NT that says “the Son of God is God.”
The sentences you quote are not only not in the Bible, they flatly contradict the Biblical usage and meaning of the words “Messiah” and “Son.”
I am continually amazed at your ability to derive completely different meanings out of plain English words, both in the Scriptures and in the writings of posters here. Why is it you demand nothing less than an exact word for word declaration that Jesus said, “I am not God,” when your “word for word declarations” that he is God are nowhere to be found?
We never said we were Hebrews, but we have read enough to know how Hebrew thought works in the Bible. We don’t say “it couldn’t possible say that, because that’s not how Jews thought.” We say “it couldn’t possibly mean what you say it does, because that’s not what the words mean.”
If you’d actually looked into the evidence we present you’d know that we get information from both modern and ancient Jews, including the writers of the Old Testament, as well as Jewish converts to Christianity. Not all Jews rejected Jesus, and in any case whether they did or not has no bearing on the examples of Hebrew culture that we refer to.
I would not presume to judge whether you are sincere about the subject or not. Clearly you believe the points you are making. But if you were really sincere about discussing this subject, you would have known that such outlines already exist. You have yet to present any sound rebuttal to any of our proofs. You seem to just want to argue about it, and continue to repeat the same arguments over and over, ignoring or misrepresenting our responses. Is there really any profit in continuing to beat this dead horse?
Andrew,
Since when is prayer not real communication? Where on earth did you read that? You said:
In the Hindu-Buddhist-Shinto-Taoist-New Age world prayer is presented as introspection of some kind. NOT SO IN SCRIPTURE! Not only that, but Jesus’ prayers are presented as communication between him and Yahweh, especially in John 17. Also in Heb. 5:7:
There is not the slightest doubt as to its communicative nature, the implicit notion of inequality and distinctness between the persons involved.
But to answer your John 11 reference: As the “prophet like Moses,” Jesus had to, not only perform miracles (as Moses did), but also do it in Yahweh’s name. Praying to Yahweh and doing it aloud for the sake of the crowd, would indicate exactly that. This scripture needs no sophistry in its explanation.
The metaphor is presented as two persons involved. The genitive (…of…) indicates two entities, a referent and an agent. The anthropomorphism explains what is going on in the invisible realms. If the anthropomorphism presents two persons, our application of the metaphor cannot violate that. A decisive proof against Oneness doctrine.
Once again two entities. A singular throne is no proof of ontological identity. That is simply special pleading. Two entities, two roles and positions (God – Creator, Lamb – redeemer provided by God). No proof for Oneness whatsoever.
Revelation 5:6 says: “And I saw, and behold, in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the [twenty-four] elders, a lamb standing as being slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God being sent into all the earth.”
Here, separate entities are depicted again.
Revelation 5:14 says: “…to the one sitting upon the throne and to the lamb, ‘The blessing, and the honor and the glory, and the might to the eons of the eons.’”
Revelation 7:9 says: “…a great multitude…standing before the throne, and before the lamb…”
Revelation 19:4 says: “And the twenty-four elders fell down, and the four living creatures, and they did obeisance to God – to the one sitting on the throne – saying, ‘amen; Alleluia’”
There’s no doubt as to the distinctness in these depictions between Yahweh and the Lamb, Jesus.
You’re creating a false dilemma here. They are ALWAYS depicted as different and separate persons. Never as an ontological identity. Prayer in itself involves communication. That is exactly what we do when speaking to the different, distinct Person, Yahweh:
Php. 4:6: “Do not be anxious over anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication along with thanks-giving let your petitions be made known to God;”
This is exactly what our Lord, Christ Jesus did. And you call this talking to yourself???
I’ll stop you right here. Your initial premise is false, thus your subsequent premise(s) and conclusion(s) will be false. Your analogy assumes identity and a mere change in roles, which is exactly what you’re supposed to prove before assuming it. You’re begging the question with your analogy. Your analogy doesn’t agree with what Scripture presents us, so, it’s also a false analogy.
Look who’s talking!!!
If you can’t see that Jesus is separate from his Father, well, you must be autistic. Then language means nothing to you. Seeing clear and unambiguous testimony of their distinctness and inequality as vague is also a result of possible autism. But, you see, Andrew, you expect us to believe you! Your fallacies have been exposed. Your argumentation ending up in a multipersonal pantheon god you yourself refuted. Now you introduce the New Age concept of praying and apply it to Jesus! Not to mention the grammatical extravagances and utter disregard for the Hebrew culture. To top it all, you’re a King James Onlyist!!! Oh, man, you chose the wrong crowd to convince, friend.
Jaco
Andrew, how convenient for you to ignore the Biblical proofs.
You have to use Star Wars and Superman analogies to state your case. How pathetic! And you dare call my arguments shaky? How’s that for a puppy barking at the elephant! Only if prayer is communication then that would indicate seperate persons. And your proof is mental introspection/New Age praying which is nowhere presented in Scripture as prayer!
Not to mention all your erroneous analogies and outright deception you present as truth. Instead of arguing the case, you merely repeat your weak little Harry Potteresque arguements. And that to “prove” what is divine? You have a problem, pal.
That’s why I have to remind myself not to debate mindless parrots. Ranting and raving Muslims are of your league. Much the same as in your case, there’s one thing worse than knowing nothing – that’s knowing a little.
Sorry, pal, but it’s game over! You lose! Solid!
Jaco,
While I agree with you that Andrew’s use of language does not conform to its general rules, I think attacking him with statements like “You must be autistic” and “You have a problem, pal” are unnecessary and not in keeping with the standards of this blog or with the love of God. Please limit your comments to attacking the ideas, not the person.
Mark C.,
I disagree with your assessment of Jaco. I have been reading this entire thread, and I think that Jaco has been the most active in not only defending the Unitarian side, but also has had to defend himself against multiple attacks from Andrew in which the Admins of the site did not address. So, I think Jaco is simply outlining the context of the dialogue and exaggerating in a proper manner to display a mirror of analogies in his defense. Even Jesus thought is not wrong to crack a whip from time to time. If you have been following the thread, it is obvious that it is reaching a end and there is nothing wrong with the occasional exclamation.
I also think you have mis-quoted Jaco. For example, you said…
I took the “You must be autistic” qoute from Jaco in a different light given the context as he continued to say…
“Then language means nothing to you. Seeing clear and unambiguous testimony of their distinctness and inequality as vague is also a result of possible autism.”
I took the context as a great but blunt example of Andrew ignoring the simple language in the Bible. If the analogy in reference to autism “offends” you, then just say so.
Also, as far as your contention of Jaco saying, “You have a problem, pal.”
In proper context, he just finished saying, “Not to mention all your erroneous analogies and outright deception you present as truth. Instead of arguing the case, you merely repeat your weak little Harry Potteresque arguements. And that to “prove” what is divine?”
It is obvious here that Jaco is passionate in his rebuttal to anyone who has been following this debate that it is coming to a close. I think we are talking about context and different types of debating styles. It doesn’t give you the right to call Jaco out by saying he is going against “the love of God.” I think that is rather uncalled for on your part.
It’s easy to step in and call out what you may think is a brothers faults, but I happen to think that Jaco single handily taking on Andrew in a debate, without the help of anyone else, needs to be seen in the light of context, and not defining his faults as a “back seat driver.”
You had plenty of opportunities to jump in Mark, why didn’t you? I’m not saying you couldn’t, but, see how easy it is to accuse a fellow brother?
Anyway, I just want to say to Jaco, job well done, I have learned a lot from your debate with Andrew and look forward to more of your posts.
- Joseph
Mark,
just to point out, I’m not saying you had nothing to do with the debate of the thread, just stating that I think Jaco presented the best arguments and received the most erroneous statements from Andrew in which the Admin did nothing about.
Joseph
I also agree Jaco did an excellent job and under the circumstances did his best to be nice. I do not feel that he step over the line in this discussion because he was making trying to make a point to andrew and he felt that it was necessary. out of all that post here Jaco usually goes out the way to be polite.
we all are guilty when we just think something without writting it. so he who is without unpure thoughts cast the first complaint.
Joseph,
I agree that Jaco presented the best arguments and received the most erroneous statements from Andrew. The administration doesn’t reprimand anyone for erroneous claims. But the policy is to attack the ideas and not the person.
I wasn’t “defining his faults” I just pointed out the two phrases which were more of a personal comment than a criticism of the ideas. I agree, Jaco did a great job.
I did jump in a few times on this one, and more on a couple other threads with Andrew. And again, I’m not accusing Jaco, I just thought those two comments were more attacking the person than the idea.
Jaco, if you thought I was accusing you, I’m sorry. I just meant it as a reminder. I know how hard it is to refrain from such comments when dealing with a frustrating argument.
Joseph, Robert, Mark,
No sweat, brothers. Thanks for the encouragement and thank you for enjoying the solid evidence as much as I did. Time and again I am amazed at how much sense truth makes. It fills me with appreciation to see how the God of Truth and His Son ensure that truth prevails.
But, alas, not everyone can take truth. Some of us used to be spiritual swines, others still are, whose only reaction to truth is to trample on valuable pearls. Not even our Lord’s testimonies could penetrate the callous and self-righteous hearts of some. I won’t dare do any better than he did.
Yes, among ourselves we might have a few differences, but these remain peripheral indeed. United in our untiring search for and defense of truth, it’s an honor to be ambassadors of our Hero and His God!
In Christ,
Jaco
Jaco,
Dear Mark,
I haven’t time to read through the stir-up that just happened in the last 24 hours (I’ll catch it later) – however, I’d like to demonstrate that you’re not being objective – or you would have been careful to avoid making an incorrect absolute statement.
Mark wrote:
For context, here’s the exact quote you were objecting to:
Honestly, Mark, please answer:
1) Did you check to see if “the Son of God” was in Luke 3?
2) Did you question why I had paired Luke 3 and Genesis 5?
3) Do you really think like a Hebrew? [honestly, now?]
You’re proving my point. If you don’t understand something I say (and in this case I purposely held back) you are quick to rush in and protest loudly with indignation. You’re not “trying to understand” – rather, you’re being adversarial in your approach.
Besides, didn’t I say that you wouldn’t recognize this you weren’t “thinking like a Hebrew?”
If you had said, “Explain this” as a question or a challenge, that would be one thing. However, you protest against that which you know not.
1) You either know what I’m specifically talking about
2) Or you haven’t any idea what I meant, and you protested regardless.
Which one of those was that? Honestly, now?
-Andrew
The representative of Mark C. wrote:
This is exactly what I mean, when I say that you seem to have little interest in even fairly acknowledging the points in question. You’ve seen this before (I know you have) and you also know that this is repeated more than a few times, and this is just a sample:
You yourself have said that “anything can be called god” but only the God of the Old Testament reserves the “first and the last” and “the beginning and the end” and when he does so, it’s for the purpose of saying “there is no other God.”
Especially read Isaiah 41-48: in these chapters, three times the LORD identifies himself as “the beginning and the end” and “the first and the last.”
Over and over in Revelation, even outnumbering the instances of Isaiah, Jesus identifies himself as the God of the Old Testament, using the language of Isaiah, in the form of “the beginning and the end” and “the first and the last” and “Alpha and Omega.”
When the LORD spoke to Moses, he simply said “I AM.”
Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty
Why do you think that all those words are used, if they aren’t supposed to be for identification?
I am amazed that after all this time, you will still argue that Jesus is never identified as God.
So, I have a request. Let me speak to Mark, please. I mean, the real Mark. I’m tired of speaking to his “perfect representative.” I know you’re not really Mark.
-Andrew
Andrew,
1) I didn’t say “the Son of God” was not in Luke 3. I said there is not one verse in Luke 3 or anywhere in the NT that says “the Son of God is God.”
2) Why you paired the two chapters is beside the point. Your initial statements were false. Nowhere in the Bible does it say the Son of God is God; nowhere in the Bible does it say “Messiah is the LORD God;” and nowhere does Jesus say, “I am the God of the Old Testament named YHWH.”
3) I try to understand the Scriptures in light of Hebrew culture as much as possible, whereas you deny that doing so has any validity because many of the Jews were called hard-hearted and unbelieving, and rejected Jesus.
I can read plain English, and no roundabout, convoluted explanation can justify “the Son of God is God” or “Messiah is the LORD God” or “Jesus is the God of the Old Testament.” The Bible says no such things.
…and then you procede to quote verses that use the phrase “the first and the last.” We’ve been over this endlessly. Two people being called the same thing does not make them the same person.
I did not. I said that representatives of God, or exalted persons, can be called God. Another example of you getting a completely erroneous meaning from simple English words.
And again, Jesus referring to himself as “alpha and omega” is not identifying himself as the God of the Old Testament.
Because they have meaning, and some of them can be applied to both the Father and His Son.
Why do you think Jesus never says the exact words, “I am the God of the Old Testament”? That’s why I said, “Why is it you demand nothing less than an exact word for word declaration that Jesus said, ‘I am not God,’ when your ‘word for word declarations’ that he is God are nowhere to be found?”
I am amazed that after all this time, you still don’t see the difference between him being called something that God is also called and him being called God, or the the fact that even calling someone God doesn’t mean he is YHWH, the Creator.
I don’t know what that is supposed to mean, or what you are implying.
I’ve used plain, simple English, and you have repeatedly managed to misunderstand and/or misinterpret what I say and what the Bible says. Like I said before, is there really any profit in continuing to beat this dead horse?
Dear Representative of Mark C,
You didn’t give a short straight honest answer to any of those three questions. Please let me answer them for you.
I previously asked:
[Honest answer] one: You did not check to see if “Son of God” was in Luke 3, and you probably trusted your memory.
[Honest answer] two: You had no idea why I paired Luke 3 with Genesis 5. You would rather protest that it couldn’t possibly make a difference.
[Honest answer] three: Although you think highly of “thinking like a Hebrew” but you recognize that you are not really a Hebrew. You’re removed by a long distance of time, culture, and perspective.
The representative of Mark C. wrote:
Genesis 5 and Luke 3 aren’t English proofs, they’re Hebrew proofs. It seems to me that when I present the English, you protest that the “Hebrew perspective” doesn’t allow that interpretation, but when I offer Hebrew, you then want to go back to “plain English?”
The plain simple English says that Jesus is the beginning and the end, the first and the last, he who created all things, he who was there in the beginning, who was God.
You cannot protest that this occurs no where in the “simple English” because you yourself keep referring to a web post you’ve got somewhere, explaining reasons why this “simple English” doesn’t count.
So please don’t protest against the “simple English.” You protest verses like these saying they deny the “Hebrew perspective” or something to that effect. Your argument shifts at least to “complex English in the light of a theory of Hebrew perspective.”
The representative of Mark C. wrote:
I finally understood what you were saying.
So now, I’m not one of those simpletons that actually get confused and think that you’re Mark, just because you use every name of Mark, because you speak for him, because you have his personality, because you wield all his authority, etc. You’re just his representative.
The representative of Mark C. wrote:
Would you care to tell me how come you singled out the Greek phrase of “Alpha and Omega” and proclaim that those Greek letters don’t occur in the Old Testament? The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, not Greek!
How come you singled out the Greek, and ignored the words that translate into Hebrew?
Yes, when Jesus appears and says:
“I am the first and the last”
“I am the beginning and the end”
“I am Alpha and Omega”
Then he is saying:
“I am the LORD King of Israel”:
“I am his redeemer the LORD of Hosts”
“There is no other God beside me.”
I think you ignored “the first and the last” because you knew that was used as the Old Testament identification for the LORD God.
You know as well as I that the Hebrew letters “YHWH” won’t occur in the entire New Testament. That would mean that no-one is YHWH anymore, by the extension of your logic.
Additionally, you won’t believe a simple word like “God” because you already have your write-up explaining why we can avoid that word “God” in the “plain English.”
The representative of Mark C. wrote:
If you step out, and let me respond to Jaco and others. I can only keep up with so much volume.
If the real Mark wants to talk to me, I’ll talk to him. I don’t think there’s any progress to be made talking with his representative. And don’t bother trying to fool me into thinking you’re the real Mark: I’m not buying that anymore. You’d have to prove it to me, and you’ve already shown me all the “false proofs” to watch out for.
Take care,
-Andrew
Dear Jaco,
I am going to reply, because it seems that some people (Joseph) have gotten the impression that you are “irrefutable” because I have not had resources to reply in the past couple days:
1) I have had real world limitations on computer access
2) You have been absurdly insulting, simply creating spam.
Here’s some of your recent “proofs”
Jaco wrote [post 27]:
Did you mean that as a religious slur?
We already established (you admitted) that you cannot successfully defend “Unitarianism” if you are restricted to the English words of the King James.
You’ve also demonstrated that you feel required to hunt down a lonely manuscript (Aleph) that’s been revised and edited by 10 different people over 1000 years, to find a grammatically flawed Greek construction to remove “God” from 1 Timothy 3:16, because it’s that damaging to your theology.
You ignore 99% of the Greek manuscripts, and you lack the support of even a single quotation to support the [grammatically flawed] manuscript.
If you want to talk about Bible Versions, present it in a separate post, not like a terrorist who expects to be able to “slander-and-run” for the praise of his fans.
Jaco wrote [post 28]:
Paul preached at the Acropolis, and preached to them the “unknown God” (see Acts 17:23) and also cited the Greek poets (verse 28). Will ye mock Paul, also?
My use of my “Superman” dilemma was to demonstrate the absurdity in your argument: I used the same Unitarian arguments that I’ve seen printed in Unitarian tracts, and they “prove” that Clark Kent was not Superman. To a reasonable person, this would demonstrate that there’s something wrong with your measure of “proof.”
Now I wonder where you’re getting “Star Wars” from – but it demonstrates that you’re not thinking too carefully before you type.
The “puppy and elephant” analogy is lost on me. Are you saying that Jesus was the puppy, and the barking is the prayer? Perhaps you could explain this profound concept… I haven’t heard that one before.
Jaco wrote: [post 28]
Would you like to invent some more arguments for me, so you can “knock them down” Jaco? This is another typical “Straw Man” argument, it’s actually misrepresenting and lying about what I said.
When you accuse me of using “New Age praying” as proof, you resort to slander and misrepresentation. You were the one who introduced “New Age” and I demonstrated how that was a nonsense circular argument.
Jaco wrote: [post 28]
Wow. Outright deception? Talk about unfounded personal attacks. Where did Harry Potter enter into this?
Jaco wrote: [post 28]
Wow, against stunning assaults like that, how could I expect to win? Autism, Harry Potter, and Raving Muslims!
And to think that you used two posts in a row for that stunning display of ad hominem (personal) attacks! Was the first one not insulting enough?
What amazes me more is that the next 6 out of 7 posts was spent by the home team “patting you on the back” for a “job well done.”
If someone else, like Joseph or the Representative of Mark, wants to present an argument or a question, I’ll talk with them. If they think you had a “winning argument” then they can dig through that mess, clean away the trash, and present it.
Consider yourself disqualified.
-Andrew
Dream on, Andrew…
You’re still game over…