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This Site Is No Longer Active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.


5 Answers for Marc (6b)

  

This is the twelfth post in a moderated debate between Biblical Unitarian Danny Dixon and Trinitarian Marc Taylor. A complete list of posts can be accessed here.

1. “Unique”

In 1 Corinthians 15:23-28, first, the Father who “subjected all things unto Christ” in the present is excepted from being made subject to Christ. Marc confusedly insists ed when he insists that exclusive terminology in the Scripture must stand “without qualification” in a context like Jude 4, when other biblical teaching does establish exceptions. All-inclusive language can be excepted (e.g. see marriage differences in Mark 10:12 and Matthew 19:9 defines

In one translation of Jude 4, there is a perfectly unique assignation of oneness as Master and Lord made to Jesus, this fact should not blind us to the fact that as true as that assignation is, it does not place the Messiah on an equal par with the Father who is to receive emphatic recognition when Christ will be publicly subjected to the one who subjected all things to Christ (1 Corinthian 15:28).

Not only this, but Mark does need to understand that scholars have acknowledged that Jude 4 can be translated as indicating a dichotomy between the one who is Master over the one who is Lord (This includes the scholars who translated the ASV: “denying the only Master, and our Lord Jesus Christ”; ASV, KJV). “Lord” or kurios in the passage, in Greek, scholars do admit that the word represents various degrees and titles of significance, (Shirley J. Case. “kurios as a Title for Christ,” Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 26 [1907], pp. 154, 159-160; E.g. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon, pp. 261-262). The Father, who gave Jesus life (John 5:26; 6:57), made the Son to be Lord of heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18; Act 2:36; Daniel 7:14).

2. Lords

This is really Marc’s first question restated. When Marc said in his 2 Trinitarian Constructive that appealing to Nebuchadnezzar failed because “Nebuchadnezzar was not king of all other kings in that he ruled all other kings of the entire earth,” but Christ should be distinguished because he “rules with God in all of heaven,” something not true of Nebuchadnezzar’s supremacy, again, this was something already covered in establishing Jesus’ status as one given life by the Father (John 5:26; 6:57), where relationships are contextually defined. To call Jesus Lord of lords as if it meant that Jesus’ status as seated next to God meant that this was an eternal status of rulership that always existed is not what the Bible teaches. Marc fails to understand that he is contradicting himself to say that the Almighty has always existed and to maintain at the same time that

“The Father gave [omnipotence] to [Jesus]. If anyone has all power for any period of time then that necessitates they are Almighty (51 after your 2nd Trinitarian Constructive [4a]).

Actually, he reveals his complete belief in his 5b Answers, namely that “The Lord Jesus was, is and will always be omnipotent. He chose not to always use His ‘full power’ (omnipotence) during His earthly life. Refusal to employ ability does not necessitate inability.” Essentially, he believes that Jesus masked his divinity on the earth, that he was not really a man “made like his brothers in every way” (Hebrews 2:17) as if he was ever divested of divinity in becoming human. When I say, “Yes, the Lord of all lords/Supreme Lord/Highest Lord in heaven is the Father of the Lord Jesus,” I admit Marc’s said earlier statement when he said the Father gave Jesus All power. One moment before Jesus had all power (in being givenit!), he was not omnipotent; therefore at that moment he was not Almighty God.

That Jesus’ claim to be “one” with the Father (John 17:21-23) is a unity of purpose that even Christians are to have. Christians will be like Jesus is now when they “see him as he is” (See 1 John 3:1-2) does not suggest that Christian will become Almighty God once, in seeing Jesus, they become “like him.” To admit that God gave Jesus all authority and power is fatal to Marks case, which he cannot save by backtracking and saying that he didn’t really mean it, but that rather Jesus chose not to always use the full power, omnipotence, Almighty God-ness, that was eternally his.

3. God Alone Created (Job 9:8)

Marc’s perspective of how to read Scripture is is simplistic and ad hoc. In my first presentation, I mentioned 1 Corinthians 8:6, which says that all things are “of” (Greek ablative or genitive or origin ek) the one God the Father, but those things are also said to be “through” (Greek instrumental or dative of agency dia) the one Lord Jesus Christ.” I visited this idea early on in Comment 6 to your Rebuttal 1b:

Thayer . . . held, particularly regarding Jesus as the Logos in the first few verses of John 1 that the Logos (the Word) “is expressly distinguished from the first cause” ( J. H. Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977 reprint], p. 133).

There should be clarity regarding the terms “first cause” and “absolute beginning.” But I think we can see what they mean especially if they use the two terms in the same citation. Thayer’s use of the term has Jesus the Logos existing apart from “the first cause,” which, in context, is the Father. Bitenhard, on the other hand uses the term in a different sense of the Logos as opposed to the Father who is “the absolute beginning.” He writes of the Logos or the Word as “in the strictest sense pre-existent before the world and so before time which begins with the world” (“Beginning”_NIDNTT_I:166).

The idea is that although God used an intermediary to create all things at the beginning, which is marked as at the beginning of time with the start of the world, he is still properly said to have created the wor ld “alone.” Again, we should not forget how central the concept of agency is. In this sense, God creates “through” the pre-existent Son, “through” whom and “for” whom all things were created (Colossians 1:16). The details are not explained in Scripture, but the truth is precisely laid out (See also Hebrews 1:2; John 1:2. Interestingly, I do not think Marc will differ with my words. He simply morphs Father and Son into a singular entity, although he will use the word “persons” as if that very technical theological word, which has no orgin in the New Testament, should have been used by God to explain what he meant when he said the Father created alone, but the Father used the Word to do it. My understanding, which admits the logical existence of two separate entities, is understandable and does not violate the normal use of language.

4. Marc’s Confusion on Word Studies in Exegesis

John D. GrassmickPrinciples and Practice of Greek Exegesis: A Classroom Manual (1976, Dallas Theological Seminary) sets out basic question that exegetes should answer in interpreting scripture. They should ask how one is to determine the possible meaning of a word and “How do the New Testament authors use the word in comparison to the extra-biblical usage? What basic meanings have emerged?” Marc fails to understand that I am not suggesting that latreuo takes on a different meaning in The Sibylline Oracles. Marc’s confusion in his exegetical method is that he does not understand that the question at issue in discussing the word in that context is a theological matter, not a lexical matter, for the word means the same thing in both the NT as well as in that extra-briblical source. He asks the wrong question if he thinks I am suggesting that the meaning of the word has changed. Greek-speaking people knew how to use their own language. Scholarly analysis of the portion of The Sibylline Oracles which uses latreuo considers theologically how that service of worship could be applied to Adam.

The text referenced is not concerned with the hows or wherefores of the matter. Nor does it suggest that there must necessarily be omniscience and omnipotence for there to be latreuo. Even Marc admits that the word was used of pagan deities although none of them really existed since “God is one” (1 Corinthians 8:4). The proper questions, as Seeburg asks, are these: (1) If the word is used of pagan deities or of a man, how should that use be understood? Under what circumstances could a man receive latreuo? The answer is: (1) A man who had God’s specific blessing could. (2) A man in God’s image and character could. Jesus Christ fits the bill (Acts 2:22; 10:38; Philippians 2:6ff; Colossians 1:15).

5. Omnipotent = Almighty.

Yes. But the biblical phrase “all authority in heaven and on earth,” and similar terminology, is restricted with the exception that a created or life-given entity must ultimately be subjected to the Father, and is therefore not Almighty. The Son was never given power equal to the Father since the Son is a lesser lord (Hebrew Adoni (Psalm 110:1; 1 Corinthians 15:28).

74 Responses to “5 Answers for Marc (6b)”

  1. on 29 Sep 2010 at 9:10 amDavid

    I’m confused, Danny. In point #3 above are you now saying that Jesus was pre-existent and that the Father created the universe through him?

  2. on 29 Sep 2010 at 9:58 pmDanny Dixon

    Re 1:

    David,

    Yes.

    This is not my language, but the language of the Scriptures in the passages that I cited above. As I noted, “The details are not explained in Scripture, but the truth is precisely laid out (See also Hebrews 1:2; John 1:2).

    Danny

  3. on 04 Oct 2010 at 12:36 pmDavid

    The greek word “ποιέω” can be rendered many ways other than how it is typically understood in this passage as “Make or Create”.

    To produce, construct, form, fashion, etc.
    To make ready, to prepare.
    To produce fruit, bear, shoot forth
    To acquire, to provide a thing for one’s self
    Constitute or appoint one anything, to appoint or ordain one that
    to make ready, and so at the same time to institute.
    To perform: To a promise

    It appears that Jesus then “made ready” or “prepared” the earth, or possibly acquired it (given the passage context and his heirship). This would make more sense since this passage appears to conflict with scripture which states that God created the world “alone”.

    I still don’t understand from those passages how Jesus was pre-existent in any form other than in the plan of God. I understand that the word/logos existed before the world, as it was the very word of God that caused creation. The word “became” flesh and dwelt with us. After all John 1:18 goes on to describe Jesus as “Begotten”. Acts 13:33 and Heb 1:5 tell us specifically when Christ was Begotten. (Not to be confused with conceived). Could you please elaborate how or where the scriptures say that Jesus is pre-existent in any other sense?

    Thanks Danny. Shalom.

  4. on 04 Oct 2010 at 4:26 pmAnthony Buzzard

    Danny and others, The Trinitarian system aims to say that Jesus IS Yahweh. This however makes two Yahwehs since we all know the Father is Yahweh. Jesus’ creed states this proposition “the Lord our God is ONE Lord.” That statement counts the Lords as one single lord, “no one else except he” (=one single person).

    Jesus is “my lord” and “our Lord” in NT parlance (cp. “David our lord,” “lord Son of David”) and we all should know that “my YHVH, our YHVH” is impossible and never appears in the OT.

    As to preexistence, the term is a foggy word. You cannot logically preexist yourself and Matt and Luke are keen to tell us when, where, how and why the Son was fathered, begotten, brought into existence. If you are already in existence, you cannot be brought into existence. If you are already breathing, no one needs to make you breath. If you began to read this post today, you did not read it before that time. To beget is “to cause to exist,” and no one can cause you to exist if you already exist.
    Jesus is not human if he is pre-human.
    Anthony

  5. on 04 Oct 2010 at 5:26 pmMichael

    Anthony writes- You cannot logically preexist yourself

    Response… The wind ruffles the leaves of the date sapling in its planter, and Dr. Elaine Soloway quickly shields it. “There’s only one plant like this in the world, and I’m still worried about it,” she says. Methuselah – that is the sapling’s name – is indeed unique. In 2005, Soloway, from Kibbutz Ketura in the Arava, germinated it from a 2,000-year-old date seed found at Masada.

    For the past two millennia, since approximately the time of the Great Revolt of the Jews against the Romans, in 66-73 C.E., the seed lay dormant, until Soloway and her team breathed life into it, making it the oldest seed ever to germinate.

    If you are born from seed you can logically pre-exist your birth.

  6. on 04 Oct 2010 at 6:47 pmMarc Taylor

    Anthony,
    Several years ago I was in email correspondence with you and at that time you held that Christ is not nor should not be prayed to. If that is still your position now then why don’t we have a debate about it?

    Thank you
    Marc Taylor

  7. on 04 Oct 2010 at 8:15 pmDoubting Thomas

    Michael,
    You said, “If you are born from seed you can logically pre-exist your birth.”

    If Yeshua/Jesus was conceived from an ancient seed that went back to before the universe was created, how could he then be from the seed of David???

    Did David also preexist in some form before the creation of the universe???

  8. on 04 Oct 2010 at 8:50 pmRandy

    This debate has been interesting, to say the least. But it would seem just as it has always been the past 2000 years, no minds were changed. Perhaps more questions looking for answers have been given birth. This point can be debated until the proverbial cows come home and I doubt if anyone’s mind will ever be changed. So where do we go from here. Perhaps to believe that Jesus is truly the Son of God, He died and rose again by the power of God, He was and is the Messiah. Lacking in belief in that one must surely question their salvation.

  9. on 04 Oct 2010 at 9:42 pmDoubting Thomas

    Randy,
    You said, “So where do we go from here. Perhaps to believe that Jesus is truly the Son of God, He died and rose again by the power of God, He was and is the Messiah.”

    You are of course correct. This, above all else, is the most important thing…

  10. on 04 Oct 2010 at 10:34 pmrobert

    “Perhaps to believe that Jesus is truly the Son of God, He died and rose again by the power of God, He was and is the Messiah. Lacking in belief in that one must surely question their salvation. ”

    Randy
    All these things are very important, but to say that someone lacking that belief is questioning their salvation is a very unchristian statement. This implies that salvation can be earned by knowing something when it is actually based on what type of person you are. If you possess the morals that Jesus taught why would he not confess you before the Father.Your statement condemns BILLIONS of People who possess qualities that most christians today deny.You also deny salvation to chilldren that died before knowing or hearing God.
    When God created Mankind he stated it was Very Good yet none of the things above existed.
    This must mean they were morally acceptable to God which means these morals must be instilled in the creation of mankind.
    Now if its entering the Sabbath Rest than all these things are a must but this is a different promise than the Salvation to the multitude of the Moral.

  11. on 04 Oct 2010 at 11:48 pmDavid

    Micheal,

    You stated above in your response to Anthony “If you are born from seed you can logically pre-exist your birth.” I do not understand how this can possibly apply. Jesus is a human being and was the “Seed of Avraham”. It makes no sense that Jesus pre-existed in the form of a seed. Surely “the” seed was not a little swimmer in Abraham’s body. He could just as equally so, been said to have pre-existed in Mary’s ovaries as an egg.

    Randy,

    I agree with DT, that what you stated above is of central importance, and other topics begin to look like moot points at best. However I agree with Robert. Our redemption was purchased for us by the blood of Messiah. However Jesus himself stated that the requirement for those of us who want to enter the kingdom of God are to obey God’s commands… not weather we accept a doctrine or not.

  12. on 04 Oct 2010 at 11:56 pmDoubting Thomas

    Robert,
    You said, “This implies that salvation can be earned by knowing something when it is actually based on what type of person you are. If you possess the morals that Jesus taught why would he not confess you before the Father.”

    You are of course correct. I was wrong in msg. #9 where I mistakenly said, “This, above all else, is the most important thing…” The most important thing is how we treat each other, our behavior. I do not believe in orthodoxy, where we are all saved by our doctrines. I believe in orthopraxy, where we are all saved by our behavior.

    Like Yeshua/Jesus said in Mathew 25:31-40 when he talks about the Final Judgment, “Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.”

    In these passages Yeshua/Jesus talks very clearly about what standard he will use when he is judging us. Everything he talks about in these passages, involves actions that people did or didn’t do during their lifetimes. In other words – “How we treated each other!!!” – Especially the least of these my brothers.

    Thank-you for reminding me of this, which above all else, is the ‘MOST’ important thing. At least that’s the way I see it anywaze…

  13. on 05 Oct 2010 at 12:14 amMark C.

    I do not believe in orthodoxy, where we are all saved by our doctrines. I believe in orthopraxy, where we are all saved by our behavior.

    I don’t believe the Bible makes such a division. It tells us that both believing the Gospel and living in light of it are the keys to eternal life.

  14. on 05 Oct 2010 at 2:23 amJaco

    Michael,

    If you are born from seed you can logically pre-exist your birth.

    Did you pre-exist your physical birth here on earth? I know Mormons (and others) believe they did.

    Seeing that the metaphor you’re using is very uniquely applied (the very long time factor), what in our Christian life would be symbolised by the seed-bearer (or seed-source) being watered and taken care of?

    Marc,

    I agree with your statement. I think that way too many people fall into the oft-encountered trap of deciding for our Judge, Jesus Christ, on how he will judge mankind. We tend to start doing the judging ourselves. The most notorious judges throughout the centuries were the hybrid “Christian” Church. Many of their pillars were murderers themselves, and yet, the gullible and faithful churchgoer would hear how their minister denounce Islam for doing the very same thing 🙂 Classical example of the one judging being guilty of his very own judgment…

    We should steer away from deciding for Jesus on how individuals will be judged. We have a responsibility NOW, and that is to seek for truth. Also to live the truth. Both what we believe and what we do will be considered by our Judge (Joh. 3:19, 36; 1 Tim 2:3, 4). How he will judge those believing differently is none of our business, since Jesus alone (not us) have access to the highest of heavenly councils (cp. John 3:13). Although this does not remove from us our responsibility to seek, live and proclaim the truth, it does strip us from our self-appointed status as judge of others.

    Regards,

    Jaco

  15. on 05 Oct 2010 at 4:53 amDavid

    Marc,

    Yes the bible does tell us that belief/faith is important, but I don’t see why it is so hard for people to use a little critical thinking to figure out where the clear distinction is.

    I’ve said time and time again that many christians seem to think that belief or faith in the gospel has to do with weather or not one thinks it is true or not; as if during judgement day Jesus is going to use His magic “believe-o-ray” to find out what we “think” about doctrinal matters. Or as to what our “convictions” are.

    The bible clearly says we will be judged by our works. Jesus said one can tell a tree by it’s fruit. That we cannot deny. But where in here does “faith” or “belief” apply?

    There are three progressions faith (in regards to Jesus and God) takes as it qualifies itself through each phase.

    These phases are:
    1. Existence ——- 2. Qualification —— 3. Decree —– 4. Promise

    We know that the bible progressively reveals God and our Messiah following this scheme. In sequence we see Scriptures explain that God exists. We then see a demonstration of what God’s qualifications are. We are then told what it is that God wants from us. We are then told what we will receive if we do or don’t follow this plan.

    The exact same outline is followed with Jesus/Yeshua. We are told of his existence by reading scripture. We then receive many narratives identifying him as Messiah, with authority, with cross-reference to relevant passages. Next the bible tells us what it is that Jesus wants from us. Finally we are told what it is that will happen if we do or do not follow what it is that we are told.

    If one has faith in and through all 4 of these progressions/points, we arrive at obedience. Which is the final goal and the purpose of our faith. Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith.

    If I believe he exists, then I’m lead to learn who the bible says he is. If I have faith in that, I then have faith in what he is saying. If I have faith in what he is saying, I will DO it… thus faithfully awaiting the promise.

    The book of James says over and over again, “Faith without works is dead”.

    Jesus himself said: Not all who call me “lord” shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but rather them that DO my commandments. He gave strict warnings of those who “hear” but do not do. When asked point blank “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” he answered with the parable of the good samaritan. Another perfect illustration (Straight from our author and finisher Jesus!) that God is concerned not with religious conviction, but with our obedience to the command to love one another. Our faith is expressed by acts of righteousness and good works. Our salvation from death was a gift of grace, and that was expressed by Jesus’ substitutionary death and sacrifice as the first-fruits of the human race. This two-tiered sacrifice both atoned for us who would be deemed dead by stipulations of the older covenant, and brought us into right standing with God Himself, redeeming us to him.

    If one does not have faith in Jesus, they can never foster the fruit of obedience. If one does not have faith in Jesus, they do not believe he is the truth. If he is not the truth then the teachings and commandments he gave us aren’t important. If they aren’t important then we can really just do what we want…. see where this goes?

    Without faith, there is no obedience, which is the reason for having faith in the first place.

  16. on 05 Oct 2010 at 5:03 amDavid

    Pardon me… “Obedience” is not the absolute final goal. The absolute final goal is the “Promise”. Faith leads to Obedience which leads to the fulfillment of the “Promise.”

    Shalom

  17. on 05 Oct 2010 at 7:31 amMichael

    Thomas writes… If Yeshua/Jesus was conceived from an ancient seed that went back to before the universe was created, how could he then be from the seed of David???

    David writes… You stated above in your response to Anthony “If you are born from seed you can logically pre-exist your birth.” I do not understand how this can possibly apply. Jesus is a human being and was the “Seed of Avraham”. It makes no sense that Jesus pre-existed in the form of a seed.

    Response…Human birth and birth from God are not the same event as Nicodemus pondered, so questions pertaining to “Seed of David” and “Seed of Avraham” speak to the human birth of Jesus.

    Those that are born of God are born from incorruptible seed by the word of God, this is when one becomes able to begin receiving and understanding the things of the Spirit of God. This is why when Jesus was a child and his parents could not find him Jesus was in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions and all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.

    Jesus was conceived in the womb of Mary (Luke 1:35) and was then born from God in the womb of Mary (Matthew 1:20) and these are not the same event.

    If Jesus had committed a sin during his life then just as the first Adam he would have died that very day by not being able to keep the seed from God, a condition not applicable to present day believers. (1John 3:9)

    When one born of God dies and is resurrected the seed from God is sown, it is not the dead body that is reanimated (1Corinthians 15:35-38) and given eternal life but the seed from God contains the new life and body.

    Jesus is not an adopted son of God as are all others born of God; he is the Son of God by virtue of the seed he received from God.

    This is why John proclaimed of the risen Jesus “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us.

  18. on 05 Oct 2010 at 7:50 amrobert

    “I don’t believe the Bible makes such a division. It tells us that both believing the Gospel and living in light of it are the keys to eternal life. ”

    Mark
    Everytime someone comes to preach the Commandments of God ,you preach a distinction that seems to show there is a different message preached to the Gentiles.
    There is no way these 2 gospels can pertain to the same promise. If they did i would have to Say that following OT law has the greatest authority because Jesus almost completely preached this and Many NT writers also preached this. Now Paul seemed to have preached both depending upon who he was addressing. There are 3 groups the gospel were preached to,the jews,the lost sheep of Israel amongst the gentiles and the gentiles.
    Mark you and Matthew Jansen done a great job showing me how there was 2 gospels , Now if both of you could see yourselfs

  19. on 05 Oct 2010 at 10:38 amMark C.

    everytime someone comes to preach the Commandments of God ,you preach a distinction that seems to show there is a different message preached to the Gentiles.
    There is no way these 2 gospels can pertain to the same promise.

    I never said there were two gospels. I said there were two covenants – the Old and the New. The New Testament presents one Gospel for the whole world: that of the coming Kingdom of God. Jesus preached it, his disciples preached it, and Paul preached it throughout Acts and in his epistles. But my point was that the Bible does not make a division between doctrine and practice, or state that one is more important than the other. If we believe the Gospel we will live accordingly, and bear fruit in our lives.

  20. on 05 Oct 2010 at 5:22 pmrobert

    “But my point was that the Bible does not make a division between doctrine and practice, or state that one is more important than the other.”

    Mark
    I never said that you said there was 2 gospels. I said that when someone comes to preach the Commandments of God which is one Gospel, You preach a different gospel.
    It took me awhile to see that the gospels You and Matthew preach are 2 separate Gospels with 2 separate PROMISES.
    I actually stated you can only see one of the Gospels,dont know how you read it as I said you could see 2 Gospels.

    Yes there is a clear cut division between doctrine and practice.
    As i said if there was only one gospel then what Matthew preached would carry more authority than the one you preach because Jesus and Most of the NT writers Have more authority than Paul.
    Paul’s message needs to be taken in context of what group he was addressing,And when that is done there is no more contradictions.

  21. on 05 Oct 2010 at 6:13 pmDoubting Thomas

    Micheal,
    You said, “Jesus was conceived in the womb of Mary (Luke 1:35) and was then born of God in the womb of Mary (Mathew 1:20) and these are not the same event.”

    Luke 1:35, “And the angel answered her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy — the Son of God.’..”

    Mathew 1:20, “But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‘Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.’..”

    What your saying doesn’t match what is being said in the above passages. Both of these verses appear to be talking about the same thing. Yeshua/Jesus being conceived by the Holy Spirit. I don’t know where you got your theory from, but from looking at these two verses, it certainly appears that it did not come from these verses…

  22. on 06 Oct 2010 at 7:06 amDavid

    Micheal,

    Ok, I get what you are saying, but I have to disagree with you where you said “If Jesus had committed a sin during his life then just as the first Adam he would have died that very day by not being able to keep the seed from God, a condition not applicable to present day believers. (1John 3:9)”

    This is not possible and is not even biblical.

    Hebrews 5:5-10 states that Jesus learned obedience, and became perfect. The NT announces his sonship on two separate occasions. 1) His Baptism by John. 2) We are told it was completed through his resurrection. (Also see Hebrews 12:6,7)

    In order for one to learn obedience to God, they must know disobedience God. It is utterly impossible for one to even be MARGINALLY disobedient to God and remain sinless. Jesus was “perfected” he was not perfect.

    Luke 2:40, 52
    40 And the Child (Jesus) grew and became strong in spirit, filled with wisdom; and the grace (favor) of God was upon Him. … 52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.

    According to this there was a point in Jesus’ life where he was not as wise as he was during his ministry and not as strong in spirit either. It even states that he GAINED favor with God.

    Hebrews 1:4 NKJV
    4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

    Hebrews 7:28 NKJV
    28 For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever.

    Many people who hold the “eternally immaculate” Jesus doctrine forget these parts of their bible. Was Jesus perfect? No, but he was made perfect at a specific point in time – according to the bible.

    This is why he was led into the wilderness to be was tempted. To see if he was finally ready to begin his ministry and to be the sinless sacrifice. He was human just like any of us. If he were NOT human he would not qualify as a first-fruits sacrifice for the redemption of mankind.

    If he was always perfect then he would not be human, if he was not human, he couldn’t be tempted and God has a bad sense of humor. If this is the case than there would be no need for discipleship as it would be an impossible goal. The goal of discipleship is to become exactly like the master.

    There are 30 years of the life of Jesus that are completely unaccounted for. It would be completely ludicrous to assume he didn’t get into any trouble at some point in time. Does a child get greedy? Does a teenager have impure thoughts or sass his elders?

    The religious “leadership” of his day knew who he was. He was little “Yeshy” from down the street. “Isn’t THIS the son of Mary?”. They didn’t call him Yeshua ben Joseph. They addressed his lineage maternally. 2000 years ago in the hebrew world this is the same as calling someone “Mary’s illegitimate bastard kid”. They had their own reasons to doubt him and I’m sure it was based upon some personal frame of reference. Given the fact that the bible states Joseph wanted to keep this a secret, I wonder how people found out. Did Joseph leak? Did Mary tell Jesus, and then Jesus told his friends, and then his friends told their parents, and … You get the point. The fact is things go on behind the scenes of what is written in the bible that we are not privy to, and we must take that into account to be as objective as possible.

    This is the stuff that makes me want to vomit, it’s the stuff people use as a cop-out for when they mess up because they believe that perfect obedience like Christ is utterly impossible for mere humans. It’s not impossible, it’s just really – really – hard!

    Jesus is the perfect Prototype for man. Discipleship and obedience is what being a Christian is all about. The fact that Jesus did it and encourages us to pick up our own cross and follow him is encouraging. The fact that he was one of us, a human, and that he did what he did gives us hope even though what he did seems to be impossible!

    100% always sinless Jesus = Unbiblical. I suspect it has it’s origins in Trinitarian doctrine. It would be interesting to learn more on this topic.

  23. on 06 Oct 2010 at 8:22 amMark C.

    100% always sinless Jesus = Unbiblical.

    I have to disagree.

    Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

    John 8:29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.

    This is the stuff that makes me want to vomit, it’s the stuff people use as a cop-out for when they mess up because they believe that perfect obedience like Christ is utterly impossible for mere humans. It’s not impossible, it’s just really – really – hard!

    I have to strongly disagree with you here. In fact it’s this attitude in some Christians that makes me want to vomit. Jesus taught that thinking evil was as sinful as murder; that looking on a woman with lust is as sinful as adultery. This is the whole reason why Jesus came to pay for our sins. All have come short, all have sinned. We are saved by grace through faith, not by works lest any man should boast.

    The fact that he was one of us, a human, and that he did what he did gives us hope even though what he did seems to be impossible!

    On the contrary. It is his Good News about the Kingdom that gives us hope. We are all sinners and don’t deserve anything God offers, and yet He makes it available by grace. It is the Father’s good pleasure to give us the Kingdom.

  24. on 06 Oct 2010 at 8:34 amrobert

    “Does a teenager have impure thoughts or sass his elders?”

    David
    Considering there was never a sacrafice needed for children means sin was accounted for children.
    This makes sense when we take into account that if Jesus wasnt a child when his Father and Mother found Him in the temple his disrespect would of been a great sin, my bet is Joseph wore out his backside for this disrespect.
    We also find many spoke of as righteous to God according to the Law.
    So There is basis for your belief

  25. on 07 Oct 2010 at 1:10 amDavid

    Marc,

    The hope I’m talking about has nothing to do with what you are talking about. I’m not talking about the hope we have in the Gospel or the Kingdom message. I’m not talking about Grace. Those are things already established. I’m talking about the hope man actually has since he has been fashioned with the capability to grow to be perfected in Christ.

    I’ll have to agree to disagree with you on this point. The basis that Jesus was perfected as a process has stronger biblical support. Not only are there passages that state so, but the entirety of the Bible lends itself as the entire basis for a human Jesus capable of sin or disobedience. Why would God lead Jesus in the wilderness to be tested if he had been PASSING that test his entire life? Why does the bible say that God had to teach him obedience, and only after that point was he made perfect?

    If it were not possible, then why would Christ ask us to be perfect as he is perfect? Why would he wish us to become one with the Father as he is? Why would he say that we would come to do greater things? Why would we conform our selves to Christ? To what “end?”

    Of course we need grace and mercy. Of course ALL have fallen short of the glory of God. But do we really expect the entire world to be living in a state of sin and forgiveness for perpetuity? At what point does man learn obedience or be made to be obedient? Do we just wake up one day in the world to come and suddenly have absolutely no will to sin at all, just mindlessly righteous with no free will? Or maybe we just live like sinners the whole time and Jesus just continually forgives us for eternity? Is that where is this going? At what point do we become perfected? I understand we are made righteous through grace. I am not talking about right standing with God by man’s merit, that’s impossible as all our righteousness are just filthy rags. I’m talking about obedience, these are two very different things. I never said obedience put us into right standing with God, only Grace can do that. Salvation is a gift. If it’s earned then it’s works.

    This is all in the bible in black and white. Jesus was NOT always perfect in God’s eyes. I don’t see what is so hard about it except that it puts the Trinity on it’s head since the bible says Jesus wasn’t always perfect in the eyes of God. I guess that kinda ruins the whole “Jesus=God” argument, since it requires a non-biblical pre-existant eternally sinless Jesus; a phantom that only existed in the minds of members of the pagan influenced early Church. I guess they can’t have one member of the “godhead” be disobedient to himself because it wouldn’t do any good to have a theology which made God into a schizophrenic.

    The bible needs to be read plainly in it’s textural and historical context. It needs to be checked against the weight and overall backdrop of the rest of the bible, precept upon precept to see if it’s interpretation is cohesive to the rest. This is especially so if there is a perceived contradiction of passages that arise from any given interpretation. This is a form of biblical study and interpretation that Trinitarians have clearly thrown out the window and I just don’t understand why. The Bible has the uncanny ability to interpret itself.

    Anyhow, I’m sorry for rambling and I hope I did not offend you. I appreciate you sharing your views. God Bless.

  26. on 21 Oct 2010 at 4:31 amMary

    I like to think that the true nature of God is a mystery that is revealed to each of us rather than deduced. Personally, I always have and always will believe in One God – a Triune God – God the Father, Jesus Christ & the Holy Spirit – 3 distinct yet inseparable . This is a beautiful mystery to me… is beyond definition or comprehension. I’m a lot better off and happier embracing it and not so much debating it. Suffice it to say IMHO: Trinitarianism is Monotheism:
    1.The Father is God
    2.The Son is God
    3.The Holy Spirit is God
    4.The Father is not the Son
    5.The Son is not the Holy Spirit
    6.The Holy Spirit is not the Father
    7.There is only one God

    I have no plans now, in the near or distant future to attempt to try and figure any of this out 8)

    Peace!

  27. on 21 Oct 2010 at 6:06 pmDoubting Thomas

    Mary,
    You said, “I like to think that the true nature of God is a mystery that is revealed to each of us rather than deduced.”

    I agree, but I also believe it is revealed to us as we study the scriptures.

    You also said, “IMHO: Trinitarianism is Monotheism:
    1. The Father is God
    2. The Son is God
    3. The Holy Spirit is God
    4. The Father is not the Son
    5. The Son is not the Holy Spirit
    6. The Holy Spirit is not the Father
    7. There is only one God”

    I agree with all of the above except for point #2 and point #3. I can understand how some people might believe the Son is God, since there are some vague references (which I believe are simply not interpreted properly by Trinitarians), but I don’t understand how anyone can believe the Holy Spirit is God. Not only is there not even a vague reference in the scriptures that says this, there is not even the slightest hint anywhere (that I am aware of) that says anything even remotely close to the Holy Spirit being God.

    I guess it all boils down to if you want to get your beliefs from the bible or if you want to get your beliefs from the traditions of men (in particular from the early Roman Catholic Church of the late 4th century). Don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against Trinitarians. All of my family and friends are Trinitarians (at least the Christian ones anywaze).

    I just decided to study the bible with an open mind, eliminating all my preconceptions, and eventually came to my Socinian/Unitarian beliefs that I have today. At the time I came to these beliefs I didn’t even know what the word Unitarian meant, never mind what the word Socinian meant. It took several years before I finally found out that there were these people called Socinians that shared my beliefs.

    I would like to thank you for your peaceful and respectful e-mail. It is very refreshing. Most Trinitarians that we get, come on to this site saying that we are all going to go to hell in a handbasket (or words similar to that). I don’t think they even realize how un-Christian their behavior is. I certainly don’t believe that people that have beliefs that are different from mine are going to be condemned just because of their doctrines.

    May the peace of God be with you and with all of us, and may we all be united in love, together with our Heavenly Father and His Son the Messiah Yeshua/Jesus…

  28. on 21 Oct 2010 at 8:32 pmRay

    Thomas, do you believe that people can be salt or the light of the world ? (Matt 5:13,14)

    Whenever I hear the term “God the Son” in a sermon, I find myself translating it to “The Son of God.” I suppose it’s because of the word I have received and it’s how I think.

    When I hear Hebrew words for God or Jesus, I also have to translate them in my mind before I know who they’re talking about because I don’t think like a Jew. I wasn’t brought up that way. I am a gentile who came to Christ after hearing the gospel.

    I wonder if Trinitarians translate the term “The Son of God” into “God the Son” every time they hear it. I doubt it, but can’t say for sure because I don’t know how they think. I only know the words they often use.

    Just because I get familiar with the words they use doesn’t mean I know the way they think, though I have found myself saying, “I don’t think like you”, or “I don’t think the way they do. ”

    I believe I have the liberty to describe Jesus as “God” or as “Being God”. There are so many scriptures that apply to Jesus that are speaking about God.

    I found some in Psalm 46.

    I ask the readers here to read Psalm 46 and ask yourself how many verses of this psalm can be read to apply to Jesus in some sense?

    Can you be still and know that Jesus is as God is?
    Can you be still and know that for all practical purposes (discern what I say here) that Jesus is God.?

    Can you do this without making a doctrine or formula out of it?

    It’s good for a man to notice where he finds his peace concerning spiritual matters and to know who the prince of peace is.

    Sometimes I wonder if it makes good sense for me to argue with a Trinitarian who says that the Father is not the Son, and try to defend the position that in many ways the Father is as Jesus is, becaues Jesus is as God is, and on that basis tell them that I don’t necessarily agree with that statement.

    Isn’t the Son the same as the Father? I can tell of many ways in which he is. And as the Son is the same as the Father, doesn’t it follow that the Father is in many was as the Son? Isn’t he in many was the same as his own Son whom he has begotten?

    Yet I know that fathers in this world don’t show respect for their son the same way that a son should show respect for his father.

    Though the father of a son in this world will respect his son, that respect doesn’t show itself in the same way that his son’s respect should be shown to him.

    A father and a son may be in many ways very much the same in this world.

    I am aware of the distinction between Jesus and God, but I also want to see Jesus as he really is today, being as God is, being full of the glory of God, being filled with the power and presence of God, being over all the angels of God, being the captain over all the host of God. (see Psalm 46:11)

  29. on 21 Oct 2010 at 9:41 pmDoubting Thomas

    Ray,
    I believe that some people can be the salt AND ALSO the light of the world. Yeshua/Jesus tells us in Mathew 5:14 that, “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden.” We should not hide our light under a bushel, but put it out there for the whole world to see.

    I also think that being the salt of the world had more of a meaning in biblical times than it does today. In biblical times salt was very very valuable. From what I understand, at one time salt was more valuable (by weight) than gold or silver. So by saying that we are the salt of the world, it would not have just been talking about the usefulness of salt, but it would also have implied that we (the children of God) are also the most valuable things in the world (at least in God’s eyes).

    I also understand what you mean when you say, “Can you be still and know for all practical purposes that Jesus is God.” We have had this conversation before. It is just plain common sense that the right hand of God, for all practical purposes, is God. Of course that doesn’t change the fact that the right hand of God is subordinate to God, and is not actually God.

    I read Psalm 46 and couldn’t see any verses that directly applied to Jesus except perhaps like you mentioned Psalm 46:11. Like you said Yeshua/Jesus, as God’s right hand, would be the captain over all the hosts of God. But that’s alright that we don’t see everything the same. God made us all to be different from one another. I’m sure you can see some things that I can’t see, just as I can see some things that you can’t see.

    I don’t think it is that important that we agree on every detail. I think it is more important for us to just share what we see with each other, and let God move each one of us as He sees fit. God created us as individuals so he could love each one of us in his own way.

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

  30. on 21 Oct 2010 at 10:28 pmDoubting Thomas

    Robert,
    I was just wondering if you could tell me what the word ‘Selah’ means. I noticed that Psalm 46 is suppose to be a song. Since it is repeated over and over again throughout this chapter, I’m thinking it might mean ‘Chorus’. I don’t know if you know or not…

  31. on 21 Oct 2010 at 10:40 pmrobert

    Thomas
    In the Targums it means always, but all other translations just transliterate not translate

  32. on 22 Oct 2010 at 8:48 amRay

    This gets interesting when I consider that Jesus is the right hand of God, that he is the arm of the Lord God, and that it’s been said that “God has no hands but our hands.” (meaning that we are his workers upon this earth to do his will by his help and guidance)

    Here’s one of those verses from Isaiah:
    45:12
    I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

    When I change a tire I will use my arm and my hands, but when asked if I had any help, I might say that I did it by myself. It seems that I need not mention that my hands and my arm was with me.

  33. on 22 Oct 2010 at 9:37 amMary

    T: “I agree with all of the above except for point #2 and point #3.”

    M: 2 out of 7 ain’t bad. In fact that makes you a 5-point Trinitarian!

    T: “I can understand how some people might believe the Son is God, since there are some vague references (which I believe are simply not interpreted properly by Trinitarians), but I don’t understand how anyone can believe the Holy Spirit is God.”

    M: I try not to put too much stock in what I can or don’t understand. My faith has to be higher than my understanding or I’m doomed.

    T: “Not only is there not even a vague reference in the scriptures that says this, there is not even the slightest hint anywhere (that I am aware of) that says anything even remotely close to the Holy Spirit being God.”

    M: You’ve got to be kidding, right?

    T: “I guess it all boils down to if you want to get your beliefs from the bible or if you want to get your beliefs from the traditions of men (in particular from the early Roman Catholic Church of the late 4th century).”

    M: For me it boils down to prayerful dependence on the Holy Spirit’s illumination of my heart and mind when I study the Bible.

    T: “I just decided to study the bible with an open mind, eliminating all my preconceptions, and eventually came to my Socinian/Unitarian beliefs that I have today.”

    M: I decided to study the bible with total reliance on the Holy Spirit to Divinely ILLUMINATE as I study? It is the kind of ILLUMINATION that is wedded to reading, studying and exegeting the Scriptures using tried hermeneutical principles upon the text to reach its proper meaning. As I am ILLUMINATED I am guided into the truth of the Word. Without ILLUMINATION from the Holy Spirit I cannot understand the Word of God.

    I think our ability to properly interpret scripture is directly proportional to the degree of ILLUMINATION by the Holy Spirit who does the interpreting for us.

    I think if we rely on the Holy Spirit’s ILLUMINATION then we will not rely so much on our own rationalizations and understanding to explain scripture.

  34. on 22 Oct 2010 at 9:51 amMary

    T: “…there is not even the slightest hint anywhere (that I am aware of) that says anything even remotely close to the Holy Spirit being God.”

    M: can you think of any hints anywhere that I might be aware of? can you think of any verse anywhere in the Bible that I might think comes even remotely close to proving the Deity of the Holy Spirit?

  35. on 22 Oct 2010 at 9:56 amMary

    T: “I agree with all of the above except for point #2 and point #3.”

    M: I meant to say: “5 out of 7 ain’t bad! In fact that makes you a 5-point Trinitarian!”

  36. on 22 Oct 2010 at 10:05 amrobert

    “This gets interesting when I consider that Jesus is the right hand of God”

    Ray
    Not sure where you developed the understanding that Jesus is the right hand of God.
    I find it is said that He now sits or stands there, but also i find he sits at the right hand of God’s throne,does that make Jesus just part of the throne which God sits on? David was also spoke of as being sat to the right hand of God. I think God’s appointed Kings of Israel were to sit at the right hand of God but only find that David and Jesus were the only ones that remained in the position of authority with Jesus receiving his eternal honor after his resurrection. David will sit to the right hand of Jesus as the earthly king while Jesus will rule as the King of Kings from the right hand of God in heaven while God rest his Sabbath for 1000 years then after he will return that power back to God at the end.

  37. on 22 Oct 2010 at 10:08 amFrank D

    2Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

    2Peter 1:20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation.

    Unfortunately, Mary, your comments are not based upon anything written in God’s word. I am not trying to be harsh but very direct, so please understand. If we are all to get our understanding of God’s word from spiritual influences (i.e.: Holy Spirits ILLUMINATION) then those without a strong foundation in God’s truth will easily be lead astray. If that is how we are to interperate scripture then we will end up with hundreds, no THOUSANDS, of Christian denominations.

    Please review the articles posted on this blog site. They address many of the issues you raise in your post. They are well studied and scripturally backed responses to the false doctrine of the trinity. Ask questions of the authors. Thay are humble, approachable and eager to share additional thoughts and insight. I pray these articles provide additional ILLUMINATION into the subject of who God is and what his plan is for mankind. They will, IMHO, clearly show what God intended us to do: STUDY his word to find the truth!

    God Bless.

  38. on 22 Oct 2010 at 10:32 amMary

    F: “Unfortunately, Mary, your comments are not based upon anything written in God’s word.”

    M: Actually my comments are based solely and entirely on God’s word 🙂

    “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” 1 CORINTHIANS 2:14

  39. on 22 Oct 2010 at 11:12 amMary

    Frank, honestly I found your response to my post surprisingly over the top and somewhat mean-spirited unlike the response I got from “doubting thomas”. You actually helped make my point about the need for us to rely on the Holy Spirit (3rd person of the Trinity) for interpretation of Scripture… but also for other stuff like equipping us with traits that equip us to deal with others who disagree with us in a Christ-like manner.

    “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.” (Galatians 5:22)

  40. on 22 Oct 2010 at 11:44 amSean

    Mary,

    In what way was Frank’s post mean-spirited? He was very cordial. Please refrain from accusing him or his motives. Please limit your focus to his actual comments.

    thanks,
    ~Sean (moderator)

  41. on 22 Oct 2010 at 5:17 pmDoubting Thomas

    Mary,
    In msg. #34 you asked, “Can you think of any hints anywhere that I might be aware of? Can you think of any verse anywhere in the Bible that I might think even comes remotely close to proving the Deity of the Holy Spirit?”

    I am not a biblical expert and have only started reading the bible about 10 years ago. But I really don’t know of any verse that even remotely says or hints that the Holy Spirit is the 3rd. person of the Trinity or that the Holy Spirit is a Deity of some sort. Of course I could be wrong, but I don’t think so.

    I am just learning and am still a child when it comes to being a Christian…

    Robert,
    Thanks for explaining what ‘Selah’ means. You asked Ray where he got the idea that Yeshua/Jesus was the right hand of God. I think he may of got it from me. That was just my overall interpretation of what I have read. Of course, like I said to Mary, I am just a layman and I could be wrong…

  42. on 22 Oct 2010 at 8:10 pmrobert

    “You asked Ray where he got the idea that Yeshua/Jesus was the right hand of God. I think he may of got it from me.”

    Thomas
    I was really asking for biblical references from Ray but since it is also your interpretation maybe you can help me understand how you came to it.

    Have a very blessed and inspiring Sabbath

  43. on 22 Oct 2010 at 9:47 pmDoubting Thomas

    Robert,
    Mathew 28:18, “And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.’..”

    Luke 22:16, “But from now on the Son of Man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God.”

    Mark 16:19, “So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up to heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.”

    Acts 7:56, “And he said, ‘Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”

    I believe that Yeshua/Jesus is more than just an agent (shileach) of God. Since Yeshua/Jesus has been given “All authority in heaven and on earth” and is “seated at the right hand of the power of God”, it just seems to me that He is therefore the ‘right hand of God’, or at the very least the right hand man of God.

    But, I think ‘the right hand of God’ seems to describe his position better.

    May you also have a very blessed and inspiring Sabbath…

  44. on 22 Oct 2010 at 11:25 pmDoubting Thomas

    Mary,
    I just read an excellent article written by Ron S. dated 10 June 2010, that is called “Shocking Admissions from Trinitarian Scholars” if you type the title of the article into the search box at the top right of this screen the article should come up for you. One of the quotes is from a Prof. Ryrie a Trinitarian scholar. This quote might help you to understand what Frank D. is saying in msg. #37 above.

    “The word ‘theology’, from ‘theos’ meaning God and ‘logos’ meaning rational expression, means the rational expression of Christian faith. Theology is intelligible. It can be comprehended by the human mind in an orderly, rational manner” (pg. 13). Ryrie continues, “God communicates in a normal, plain or literal manner. Ignoring this will result in the same kind of confused exegesis that characterized the Patristic and Medeival interpreters” (pg. 17).

    It’s a very long article but I believe it is well worth the read.

    I hope you have a great weekend…

  45. on 22 Oct 2010 at 11:43 pmrobert

    “But, I think ‘the right hand of God’ seems to describe his position better.”

    Thomas
    We disagree on so little but on this we do disgree but only on timing. I just feel that God saying sit at my right hand TILL I make enemies a footstool shows that Jesus doesnt receive All Power and Authority TILL God has put away satan so Jesus can reign in every way as a God during Gods rest. This includes running everything in the universe during God’s rest.

  46. on 23 Oct 2010 at 3:36 amJaco

    Hey, Guys! (and Gals)

    Sorry for my absence lately. Been busy negotiating a possible debate, changed employment, and been preparing for Linguistics exams. (Needless to say, I need your prayers, please 🙂 )

    Just my 2 cents worth into this discussion:

    Mary, as noble as it sounds (and certainly is) to depend on holy spirit to guide us into knowing God better, it still has to remain in harmony with CONFIRMED inspiration by holy spirit, namely, the Bible. To go along with “inspiration” alone can be very dangerous. We are warned against exactly that in 1 John 4:1

    Another word of caution is Gal. 1:8, 9. Even if I were to get a dream, an apparition or mysterious messages declaring to me as good news something different from what I learn to be truth in the Bible, those “messengers” are to be accursed.

    So, regardless of how much we “wait upon holy spirit” to teach us the truth; if what we arrive at is not in harmony with Scripture and the cognitive world of ancient CONFIRMED true believers, we cannot yield to the implications of those dogma, nor expect them to have proceeded from the True God.

    I do agree with Sean. Frank D’s response was in no way inappropriate. If you want to see inappropriate, Mary, do yourself a favor and visit other Trinitarian sites where Biblical Unitarians are engaged in dialogue. You’ll find snideful and dismissive behaviour by Trinitarians found nowhere else but on atheistic and Islamic websites!

    You are welcome to post your thoughts here. But we disagree with you, namely, that Trinitarianism is Monotheism. It most certainly is not. Orthodox Trinitarianism a Greek-Christian hybrid doctrine having no place in Scripture or in a Christian’s life. 5 out of 7 makes you also a 5-point Biblical Unitarian…

    In Christ,

    Jaco

  47. on 23 Oct 2010 at 11:37 amMark C.

    Thomas,

    I believe that Yeshua/Jesus is more than just an agent (shileach) of God. Since Yeshua/Jesus has been given “All authority in heaven and on earth” and is “seated at the right hand of the power of God”, it just seems to me that He is therefore the ‘right hand of God’, or at the very least the right hand man of God.

    What you describe is pretty much the definition of an agent (shileach).

    Jaco,

    Mary, as noble as it sounds (and certainly is) to depend on holy spirit to guide us into knowing God better, it still has to remain in harmony with CONFIRMED inspiration by holy spirit, namely, the Bible. To go along with “inspiration” alone can be very dangerous. We are warned against exactly that in 1 John 4:1

    Another word of caution is Gal. 1:8, 9. Even if I were to get a dream, an apparition or mysterious messages declaring to me as good news something different from what I learn to be truth in the Bible, those “messengers” are to be accursed.

    So, regardless of how much we “wait upon holy spirit” to teach us the truth; if what we arrive at is not in harmony with Scripture and the cognitive world of ancient CONFIRMED true believers, we cannot yield to the implications of those dogma, nor expect them to have proceeded from the True God.

    Very well put!

  48. on 23 Oct 2010 at 11:53 amFrank D

    Mary, No mean spirit intended.

    2Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

    Jaco said it better than I ever could.

  49. on 23 Oct 2010 at 12:59 pmDoubting Thomas

    Robert (msg. #45),
    You said, “We disagree on so little but on this we do disagree but only on the timing.”

    I see what you mean that the passages from Psalm 110:1, Mathew 22:44, Mark 12:36, Luke 20:42, and Acts 2:34-35 talking about Yeshua/Jesus sitting at God’s right hand until God makes his enemies his footstool, does seem to imply that he won’t be granted this “All authority in heaven and on earth” until some point in the future.

    I was going by what Yeshua/Jesus says in Mathew 28:18, “…’All authority in heaven and on earth HAS BEEN given to me’…” (ESV – emphasis mine) which seemed to me to imply the past tense. Other verses that seem to support the past tense are Mathew 11:27, John 3:35, 13:3, 17:2, Acts 2:36, 1st. Corinthians 15:27, Ephesians 1:20-22, and 1st. Peter 3:22.

    I’m not sure how to interpret these apparently contradicting verses…

    Mark C.
    You said, “What you describe is pretty much the definition of an agent (shileach).”

    I thought that Jewish custom would allow a King to have more than one agent (shileach) to represent him to different groups of people (countries, states, etc…). Whereas I believe that since the resurrection of Yeshua/Jesus God has no other agent (shileach) representing him other than Yeshua/Jesus.

    Of course this is just my understanding…

  50. on 23 Oct 2010 at 1:27 pmrobert

    “I was going by what Yeshua/Jesus says in Mathew 28:18, “…’All authority in heaven and on earth HAS BEEN given to me’…” (ESV – emphasis mine) which seemed to me to imply the past tense.”

    Thomas
    In mine and my wife’s will all that we own has been given to our children. The given part is past tense but to a future possession.
    This is how I read this because I see that God still has All Authority and Power until all enemies are made a footstool at which point God can step off his throne to rest his Sabbath and the Annointed One that God has chosen and prepared can move from the right of it to sit upon it.
    How could God enjoy HIS Sabbath without someone to oversee HIS creation while God kicks back to enjoy

  51. on 23 Oct 2010 at 3:13 pmDoubting Thomas

    Robert
    You said, “This is how I read it because I see that God still has All Authority and Power until all enemies are made a footstool..”

    You of course could be right. I need to think and pray about this for awhile…

  52. on 23 Oct 2010 at 4:35 pmrobert

    Thomas
    The word in greek that is translated “Has been given” also can be translated “will be given” as we see in this verse Rev 13:15 which uses the exact variant of the word. edoyh is variant of didomi and is the same variant used in Matthew 28:18.
    Other variants are translated .to give 22 times,will give 14,I will give 11,will be given 10, it will be given 4,he will give 3 and many more future tenses but has been given 5 times along with many more past tenses and many present tenses also.
    It is up to the translator to determine what tense so if their belief requires it be past tense they will translate it that way.
    but as i have shown i have no problem with it having a past tense because it still relates to a future possession.
    Hope this helps

    Rev 13:15
    The second beast was empowered “to give” (edoyh) life to the image of the first beast so that it could speak, and could cause all those who did not worship the image of the beast to be killed.

    Mat 28:18
    Then Jesus came up and said to them, 1 “All authority in heaven and on earth “has been given”(edoyh) to me.

  53. on 23 Oct 2010 at 5:53 pmRay

    I suppose if I was a Trinitarian, I could understand that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, if I understood the Trinity to be God. However, I understand God to be the Father of Jesus and Jesus to be his Son, his only begotten Son who I believe has always been a part of him. (Isaiah 53)

    I wonder how about the holy spirit, the spirit of God, or as some say “the third person of the Trinity.”

    Is the holy spirit as God is? I say he is. I say that the spirit of God is as God is, that such a spirit as was in Christ is holy and is of God and that it dwells in us also who believe in Jesus.

    I suppose that makes the Holy Spirit (or holy spirit, or “spirit of God”) a Deity, in the sense that it is something that is divine, of God, a spirit having a divine nature which is of God himself.

    I believe a person has the liberty to refer to Jesus as the second person of the Trinity if they want to, but let’s also remember that
    there’s nothing in scripture that requires others to do the same. (as far as I can tell)

    I’ve heard it said that “Jesus is God, and this is true in the sense that he is the second person of the Trinity.”

    I trust that I may also say that Jesus is God in the sense that he is as God is, being the express image of his person. I believe there are many ways to say that in worship and praise. If the worship and praise is acceptable to God, (being also acceptable to his spirit which he has given us) then I trust that the thing said is true in some sense and that the sense of it in which we say such things will be judged by the spirit of God.

    I believe we all have such liberty in Christ and will be judged for our obedience to the word we have been given.

    Blessed are the peacemakers. (Matt 5:9)

  54. on 23 Oct 2010 at 7:34 pmMark C.

    Thomas,

    I thought that Jewish custom would allow a King to have more than one agent (shileach) to represent him to different groups of people (countries, states, etc…). Whereas I believe that since the resurrection of Yeshua/Jesus God has no other agent (shileach) representing him other than Yeshua/Jesus.

    Of course this is just my understanding…

    The concept of an agent, or shaliach (I looked up the correct spelling – I had it wrong before), is not limited to a king, nor to being the one and only representative. It is used of anyone who is sent and acts as a representative of the one who sends him. In that capacity, Jesus is given authority and power from God. (Whether he has ALL authority now, or only some until he reigns, is another issue.)

    He is now seated at God’s right hand, so whether he is technically functioning as a “sent” agent or as the link between us and the Father is probably more an issue of semantics than anything else. In any case, when the Bible calls him God, or gives him attributes of God, it is in this sense. He perfectly represents God, and is AS God to the world.

    Ray,

    I believe a person has the liberty to refer to Jesus as the second person of the Trinity if they want to, but let’s also remember that there’s nothing in scripture that requires others to do the same. (as far as I can tell)

    They certainly have the liberty to say it.  They also have the liberty to say there is no God if they want to.  It’s not a matter of whether or not they have the liberty to say it, it’s a matter of whether or not they are speaking the truth.

  55. on 23 Oct 2010 at 9:41 pmRay

    Mark,
    Which of the two statements above do you think God finds more to his liking? Do they both weigh the same in your opinion?

  56. on 23 Oct 2010 at 9:47 pmDoubting Thomas

    Robert,
    I just have a few more questions. In Mathew 11:27, when Yeshua/Jesus says, “All things have BEEN HANDED over to me by my Father, and no one know the Father except the Son and anyone to who the Son chooses to reveal him.”

    And in 1st. Corinthians 15:27, when Paul says, “For ‘God PUT all things in subjection under his feet.’ But when it says, ‘all things are PUT in subjection,’ it is plain that he has excepted who put all things in subjection under him.”

    And in Colossians 2:10, when Paul says, “and you have been filled in him, who IS the head of all rule and authority.”

    And in 1st. Peter 3:22, when Peter says, “who has gone into heaven and IS at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.”

    Are all these the same thing where the translator was able to put these things into the past tense just to match his own beliefs???

    BTW – I’m not trying to be argumentative. I’m just trying to make sense out of all these passages that seem to have a reference to Yeshua/Jesus being given ‘All authority’ in the past tense…

    Mark C.
    You said, “The concept of an agent, or shaliach, is not limited to a king, nor to being the one and only representative.”

    Maybe I’m not being clear, but what I’m trying to say is that because the bible says that Yeshua/Jesus “was given all authority in heaven and on earth” and is “seated at the right hand of the power of God”, it just seems to me that He is much more than just an agent (shaliach) of God.

    There were many agents (shaliachs) of God and it was Jewish custom for a King (or anyone else) to have many agents (or shaliachs), but from what I understand ONLY Yeshua/Jesus, since the resurrection, has been God’s representative, mediator, etc… Therefore it seems to logically follow that he must be more than just an ordinary agent (shaliach) of God.

    That’s why I think the term ‘right hand of God’ probably describes him best. Of course I am just a layman and this is all just my own humble interpretation…

  57. on 23 Oct 2010 at 10:19 pmrobert

    “Are all these the same thing where the translator was able to put these things into the past tense just to match his own beliefs???”

    Thomas
    They all can be translated in the future tense but i really couldnt tell you from them alone whether or not they should be, thats why I look to what God has said to Jesus about until all enemies are made by God a footstool. Sounds like he going to promote Jesus after He has done this , atleast it does to me.

    “BTW – I’m not trying to be argumentative. I’m just trying to make sense out of all these passages that seem to have a reference to Yeshua/Jesus being given ‘All authority’ in the past tense…”

    Thomas
    I know that you are just searching for the truth, I would never think it was to be argumentative.

  58. on 24 Oct 2010 at 1:06 amMark C.

    Ray,

    Which of the two statements above do you think God finds more to his liking? Do they both weigh the same in your opinion?

    I don’t think God likes any form of untruth or falsehood.

    Thomas,

    Maybe I’m not being clear, but what I’m trying to say is that because the bible says that Yeshua/Jesus “was given all authority in heaven and on earth” and is “seated at the right hand of the power of God”, it just seems to me that He is much more than just an agent (shaliach) of God.

    I agree. He is certainly more than “just” an agent. But an agent or emissary (another translation of shaliach) is one part of what he is, which helps us to understand how he represents God to the world. Thanks for clarifying your point.

  59. on 24 Oct 2010 at 5:58 amJaco

    Thomas,

    There were different extents, as it were, to which someone could function as a sh’liach. It could take the form of a king sending an ambassador, a landlord sending a messenger, or a father sending a son to negotiate business or settle a dispute, etc.

    In the case of divine agents, James D. G. Dunn says it well:

    One of the most fascinating features of several ancient stories is the appearance of what can be called theophanic angels; that is, angels who not only bring a message from God, but who represent God in personal terms, or who even may be said to embody God. The point that emerges presumably is that the tellers of these stories were primarily intent to indicate the reality fo the divine presence in these theophanic experiences. It is not that they wished to deny either the otherness of Yahweh, or that God was invisible to human sight. The angel [or messenger] of the Lord in such stories was a way of speaking of God’s immanence without detracting from his transcendence. The angel of the Lord was not simply an envoy from God and did not simply bring humans into the divine presence; rather he brought the divine presence into humans’ daily reality – not simply a message from Yahweh, but the presence of Yahweh. He did not bring the whole of God (that was never possible), but he brought the real presence fo God nonetheless.Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? The New Testament Evidence, pp 67, 68, 71

    On the last point, we can understand why Jesus, the exact representation of God (Heb. 1:3) could be called Immanuel – God with us.

    Also consider the excellent parable in Luke chapter 20 verse 9-16. Here, the ultimate sh’liach is the son.

    So, although you said that you view Jesus as more than a mere agent, I’d rather state that Jesus is a divine agent to the fullest extent, including his sonship and divine kingship as Adoni.

    Jaco

  60. on 24 Oct 2010 at 6:43 amRay

    I don’t believe it to be falsehood to describe Jesus as being God.
    I think it to be a fair representation of him because of who he is.
    However, if we do decide to describe Jesus as being God, we may want to consider that we should do so without confusing him with the Father, lest we become a stumbling block to others, in an unneedful way.

  61. on 24 Oct 2010 at 9:56 amDoubting Thomas

    Robert (Msg. #57),
    You said, “…that’s why I look to what God has said to Jesus about until all enemies are made by God a footstool. Sounds like he is going to promote Jesus after He has done this, at least it does to me.”

    I agree, but I think I just see it a little different. The way I see it is since he is the ‘right hand of God’ Yeshua/Jesus is currently being directed on how to use this “All power and authority” that he has been given. Of course as God’s beloved Son He can continually be asking God questions like, Why are you having me do this??? or , Why aren’t you allowing me to do that??? etc…

    After more than 2,000 years of experience of using this “All power and authority” combined with the unlimited wisdom/Holy Spirit that he has been given, Yeshua/Jesus will one day (after his enemies/Satan has been made his footstool), be able to use this “All power and authority” justly and properly without any need of direction from God the Father.

    Like I said, what I believe is similar to what your saying, but slightly different.

    Jaco,
    You said, “I’d rather state that Jesus is a divine agent to the fullest extent, including his sonship and divine kingship as Adoni.”

    Your description may indeed be better then mine (right hand of God). Like I said this is just my own personal interpretation, my own personal way, so to speak, of looking at and relating to Yeshua/Jesus.

    May you and everyone else have a great Sunday…

  62. on 24 Oct 2010 at 10:34 amMark C.

    Ray,

    I agree that it is not falsehood to describe Jesus as God, since he is called God in a few verses in the Bible (in a specific sense).

    What I was referring to was your statement, “I believe a person has the liberty to refer to Jesus as the second person of the Trinity if they want to.” It is one thing to call Jesus God in a representative sense, but to say he is the second person of the Trinity has absolutely no Biblical basis.

  63. on 24 Oct 2010 at 10:39 amrobert

    “Like I said, what I believe is similar to what your saying, but slightly different.”

    Thomas
    The way you explained in the above statement I dont think we really differ.
    I believe Jesus even received some power after his baptism when he was adpoted and probably much more after He was truly begotten by God at his resurrection from the dead to become the literal son of God.
    Of course God would be preparing Jesus by allowing him to exercise power and authority while sitting at Gods right hand till he is handed it All at once when God rest His Sabbath.

  64. on 24 Oct 2010 at 1:40 pmRay

    Legalism will always be an enemy of Christ. There are those who will think to require others to conform to their views and they are often found on both sides of a matter. They have a certain rule or law they believe must be met, fulfilled, or at least not to be violated.

  65. on 24 Oct 2010 at 1:53 pmDoubting Thomas

    Robert,
    You said, “The way you explained it in the above statement I don’t think we really differ.”

    Well I slowly came to the conclusion that I mentioned in msg. #61, after careful thinking, praying, and from studying the verses that I had mentioned in msg. #56. So really it was my sharing what I see with you, that has helped me to change and grow. Hopefully both of us now have a better understanding of our Messiah/King Yeshua/Jesus.

    May the peace of God be with you and with all of us…

  66. on 10 Feb 2011 at 11:39 pmMary

    Frank: “Unfortunately, Mary, your comments are not based upon anything written in God’s word. I am not trying to be harsh but very direct…”
    Sean: “In what way was Frank’s post mean-spirited?”
    Mary: I don’t know Sean, maybe it’s just Frank’s writing style. When we preface remarks/posts with “I am not trying to…”:
    1) …. it can seriously make the reader question our motivation in making said remarks/posts
    2) …. it basically invalidates anything else we have to say
    3) …. it does come across somewhat less than positive

    When we preface our remarks with “I shouldn’t say this…” are we really able to not say it?

    “Spirit Thing” by Newsboys comes to mind when I think of my personal experience as it relates to illumination and the Holy Spirit:

    “>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    It’s just a spirit thing
    It’s just a holy nudge
    It’s like a circuit judge in the brain
    It’s just a spirit thing
    It’s here to guard my heart
    It’s just a little hard to explain
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I took the pulpit
    Then backed down again
    Some things in heaven cannot be explained
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc0C3qcmot4

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eszjvk–twQ

  67. on 11 Feb 2011 at 7:06 pmDoubting Thomas

    Mary,
    The full quote from msg. #37 above from Frank was, “Unfortunately, Mary, your comments are not based upon anything written in God’s word. I am not trying to be harsh but very direct, so please understand.”

    It seems to me that Frank was being very polite and honest. He was saying his comments were intended to be direct and not harsh (hoping you wouldn’t interpret them as harsh). But, from you comments in msg. #39 where you said, “Frank, honestly I found your response to my post surprisingly over the top and somewhat mean-spirited.” It appears you didn’t interpret them the way that Frank intended them to be interpreted.

    I can see that you disagree with him, because just before this you quoted 1 CORINTHIANS 2:14, “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” But I don’t think it was right for you to accuse him of being mean-spirited.

    To the best of my knowledge Frank has never been mean-spirited toward anyone on this site. He is actually very quite and humble, and doesn’t post a lot. When he does post, it is always brief, short and direct. I rather like his directness. Each and everyone of us has our own style of writing and speaking.

    BTW – I really enjoyed the first video link. I had never heard of the Newsboys before. Unfortunately the second link just brought me to an advertisement for the Nissan Rogue. I thought that if I waited through the advertisement a video might appear, but I tried it twice and there was no video. Of course, I could be doing something wrong. I am rather new to computers and the internet and such…

  68. on 11 Feb 2011 at 7:12 pmDoubting Thomas

    Correction to above – “He is actually very ‘quiet’ and humble…”

    (You have to excuse my spelling. It was never one of my best subjects… 🙂 )

  69. on 11 Feb 2011 at 9:56 pmMary

    DT:The full quote from msg. #37 above from Frank was, “Unfortunately, Mary, your comments are not based upon anything written in God’s word. I am not trying to be harsh but very direct, so please understand.”
    M: No, actually that is not the full quote. Importantly, I was specifically referring to his remarks that were PREFACED with “I am not trying to…”

    Here it is:
    “I am not trying to be harsh but very direct, so please understand. If we are all to get our understanding of God’s word from spiritual influences (i.e.: Holy Spirits ILLUMINATION) then those without a strong foundation in God’s truth will easily be lead astray. If that is how we are to interperate scripture then we will end up with hundreds, no THOUSANDS, of Christian denominations.”

    The above quote by Frank grossly misrepresents what I shared about the role of the Holy Spirit in illumination. Frank refered to “spiritual influences” which has a cultish ring to it, and which is befuddling to me. He also referred to “Holy Spirits ILLUMINATION” using the plural form of the noun when in fact I used the possessive form on the Noun. I believe Frank essentially set up a “straw man” argument then attacked it.

    Maybe understanding the role of the Third Person of the Trinity in illumniation is a little like Calculus…. you either get it or you don’t. And those who get it have a hard time explaining it to those who don’t…. it takes a light bulb moment for them to get it. Illumination….light bulb….goddit?

    You have never heard of the Newboys?! You’re kidding right? Hmmmm. Didn’t know that was possible 😉 Wow! They’ve only been around for like 25 years… grammy and Dove Award-winning Christian Rock Band. The second Newsboys link was the same song performed live at a concert of thousands of screaming fans. Maybe too high on the octane for this forum…. maybe it got “moderated out”?

  70. on 11 Feb 2011 at 10:15 pmDoubting Thomas

    Mary,
    You said, “The above quote by Frank grossly misrepresents what I shared about the role of the Holy Spirit in illumination.”

    Fair enough, but I still think it was wrong for you to imply that he was mean spirited. I believe the quote I gave above where he said, “I am not trying to be harsh but very direct, so please understand” shows that he was just trying to be polite and honest with you.

    I think we can agree that just because we disagree with someone, or that we think that someone is misrepresenting us, that this is not a valid reason to say they are mean spirited. That’s attacking the person rather than the content of the message, or blaming the messenger because we don’t like the message.

    You also said, “Maybe too high on the octane for this forum…. maybe it got ‘moderated out’?”

    I don’t know a lot about computers, but I don’t think it is possible to moderate (or change the content of) a link to a third party site. I probably did something wrong somehow. It wouldn’t be the first time…

  71. on 12 Feb 2011 at 1:04 pmMary

    DT: You said, “The above quote by Frank grossly misrepresents what I shared about the role of the Holy Spirit in illumination.”
    Fair enough, but I still think it was wrong for you to imply that he was mean spirited.
    M: If I misrepresented what you said about the Holy SPIRIT, I’d have no problems with you calling me mean-SPIRITED.
    DT: “I don’t know a lot about computers, but I don’t think it is possible to moderate (or change the content of) a link to a third party site.”
    M: You “…don’t know a lot about computers…” 😉
    DT: “I probably did something wrong somehow. It wouldn’t be the first time…”
    M: You did nothing wrong. The link doesn’t work on my comp. either. What if I am right and it was “modded out”? Hey Sean, did you mess with the second Newsboys link?

  72. on 12 Feb 2011 at 3:13 pmDoubting Thomas

    Mary,
    I would like to refer you to Mark Chapter 12;

    (The Great Commandment)

    (28) And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” (29) Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord IS ONE. (30) And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ (31) The second is this: ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ There is no other commandment greater than these (Emphasis mine).

    I would also like to refer you to Matthew 7:12;

    [ The Golden Rule ] “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”

    I think that Trinitarians and Unitarians should be able to agree that these are the most important of Y’shua’s commandments. If you were to mistakenly represented someone else’s view on something, would you really want them to start throwing personal insults at you, accusing you of being “mean spirited” or whatever???

    I don’t understand how anyone who calls themselves a Christian would think it is alright to personally insult someone’s character. It doesn’t matter what they did. Personal insults should have no place in ANY Christian blog. Of course this is just my own humble opinion…

  73. on 12 Feb 2011 at 5:50 pmMary

    DT: “If you were to mistakenly represented someone else’s view on something, would you really want them to start throwing personal insults at you, accusing you of being “mean spirited” or whatever???”
    M: So you’re saying Frank made a mistake and I insulted him? Hmmm. This is getting complicated.
    DT: “I don’t understand how anyone who calls themselves a Christian would think it is alright to personally insult someone’s character.”
    M: Who insulted who? Now I’m all confused so maybe it’s time to drop this, right?

    Would love to know if/when you have your “light bulb moment” Will be praying that you do. If you’d be kind to drop me a line and let me know when it happens and I’ll bring out the fatted calf with Newsboys “Spirit Thing” playing in the background 😉

    Peace.

    Out.

  74. on 12 Feb 2011 at 6:26 pmDoubting Thomas

    Mary,

    You said, “M: Who insulted who? Now I’m all confused so maybe it’s time to drop this, right?

    From my point of view, Frank didn’t insult you at all. He was just being honest and direct about his views (which disagreed with yours). As a matter of fact in msg. #48 he apologized saying, “Mary, No mean spirit intended.”

    Maybe you are right that it is time for us to respectfully agree to disagree on this.

    You also said, “Would love to know if/when you have your “light bulb moment” Will be praying that you do.”

    I appreciate the prayers, but I’ve already had my light bulb moment. I like most people just believed the Trinity doctrine without ever really giving it much thought. Thanks to my independent bible study, I realized that the doctrine is not supported by the scriptures.

    I eventually came to my Unitarian/Socinian beliefs on my own with out any outside influence (except from God, who I had been praying earnestly to for guidance). At the time I came to my beliefs I hadn’t even heard of the word Unitarian. I certainly didn’t know what it meant. After several years of searching, I found out that there were these people called Socinians who shared my beliefs.

    I thank God for finding this site and meeting all these fellow Christians here. I wish you luck in all your future endeavors and may the peace and love of God be with you, and with us all…

  

Leave a Reply