1.

Isaiah 48:12-13, 17

“Listen to me, O Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am he; I am the first and I am the last. My own hand laid the foundations of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I summon them, they all stand up together…. [17] This is what the LORD says — your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: “I am the LORD your God….”

It is clearly Understood when God spoke of being the first and the last, it meant his eternal state. It was not a metaphor.

However, In Revelation, Jesus claims the same thing.

Revelation 1:17-18 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive forever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

So why should we believe that he is speaking metaphorically? Also, how can two things be the first and last at the same time relatively speaking? Unless they are the same thing.

2.

Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Obviously this was referring to Jesus, the prophesied son, “will be called…Mighty God and Everlasting Father.

Even though kings in the Bible shared the title “God” they were NEVER given the title Everlasting Father. That title was only given to God alone and would be considered blasphemy.

3.

Micah 5:2 (New International Version)

2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,

though you are small among the clans [a] of Judah,

out of you will come for me

one who will be ruler over Israel,

whose origins [b] are from of old,

from ancient times. [c] “

Micah 5:2 (New American Standard Bible)

2″But as for (A)you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,

Too little to be among the clans of Judah,

From (B)you One will go forth for Me to be (C)ruler in Israel

His goings forth are (D)from long ago,

From the days of eternity.”

Once again it is referring to Jesus. However its stating that his origins are from ancient times.

4.

John 10:30-33 “I and the Father are one.” Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” “We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

The Jews here made it clear that they charged Jesus with blasphemy for claiming to be God. John the author makes no mistakes when mentioning that the Jews thought that Jesus was claiming to be God…not an angel of heavenly courts, not a great prophet, but God.

5.

John 5:17-18 Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working.” For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

Once again John the author is clearly stating that the “Son of God” is considered equal with God the Father. John uses the word “equal” making it distinct.

7.

Acts 20:28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

How can God purchase the church with his own blood?

8.

Isaiah 40:3 A voice of one calling: “In the desert prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God.

Mark 1:1-3 The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God. It is written in Isaiah the prophet: “I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way” — “a voice of one calling in the desert, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.’”

John the Baptist is obviously the messenger in Mark who is preparing the way for God by making it straight in the wilderness. John the Baptist prepared the way for Jesus.

9.

Deuteronomy 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome…

1 Timothy 6:15 …which God will bring about in his own time — God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords.

Revelation 17:14 They will make war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will overcome them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings — and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers.”

God is called Lord of all Lords. That is an absolute statement. Yet, Jesus is also called Lord of all Lords. How can they both be Lord of all Lords at the same time? That is a logical contradiction. No two absolutes can occur at the same. Its like comparing two things with each other but being the best at the same time. Only one can be the best unless they are the same thing.

10.

1 Timothy 3:14-16

14Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. 16Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great:

He[c] appeared in a body,[d]

was vindicated by the Spirit,

was seen by angels,

was preached among the nations,

was believed on in the world,

was taken up in glory.

based on the content of the preceding verses, Paul was only talking about God and makes no mention of Jesus at all. But how is it that he clearly says that He (God) manifested in the flesh?

11.

Isaiah 42:8 I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another…

Isaiah 48:11c I will not yield my glory to another.

John 17:5 [Jesus prayed] And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

12.

God says that he will not give any glory to one another. Interestingly enough, he gives it to Jesus. Also Jesus makes an interesting statement when he requests to receive glory he had with him “before” the World began.

13.

How can a finite created being take on the sins of the entire world let alone one man especially if the Bible says that no man can die for another.

Deuteronomy 24:16 it specifically says this:

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the father. Every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

In Exodus 32:30-35, Moses tries to offer himself as an atonement for the sins of the people. To be written out of God’s book, means to be written out of the Book of Life, which means Moses was asking to die for the sins of the People. God’s response was “No, it does not work that way, each man dies for his own sin:”

And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people, Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto the Eternal; perhaps I shall make an atonement for your sin. And Moses returned unto the Eternal, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin–; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. And the Eternal said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book. Therefore now go, lead the people unto the place of which I have spoken unto thee: behold, mine Angel shall go before thee: nevertheless in the day when I visit I will visit their sin upon them. And the Eternal plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made. [Exodus 32:30-35]

The word of the Eternal came unto me again, saying, What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge? As I live, saith the Eternal God, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Eternal God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live? But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. [Ezekiel 18:1-4; 20-24; 26-27]

It’s very clear that a man can not die for another. The definition of a “man” meant that he was finite and created. However, if Jesus was just a finite man, he couldn’t have died for your sins. But since he did, he cannot be finite and therefore an infinite being, being able to take on infinite sins!

He cannot “just” be a created finite man. He is God.

By Eric Costa

Preach to Glorify God

The ultimate goal of Christian preaching—as with all other things—is the glory of the Triune God. When the minister proclaims God’s true and beautiful Word, he honors the Persons, attributes, and works of God. But the glory really radiates when the Spirit uses his Word to change lives. If someone is convicted, saved, comforted, inspired, redeemed by the preached Word, God was at work, showing himself to be good, sovereign, gracious, and altogether glorious.

Preach to Transform

In order to glorify God, preaching aims at complete redemption and renewal. The goal is to make the hearer better able to engage reality (God, self, others, world, culture, etc.) from a Biblical perspective. Every facet of every life is fair game—if a person thinks, feels, speaks or acts at all, then those ways of participating in God’s world ought to be made to serve God’s glory. Sometimes the transformation is dramatic, as when a person is convicted and converted. Sometimes the change is externally imperceptible, as when a person is reassured once again of God’s love. Always it should be so that the person loves God with his whole heart, soul, mind and strength better than he did when he first sat in the pew.

Preach against Unbelief

In order to transform people, preaching aims to increase their faith. The desired progression is from sin to holiness (sanctification), which requires faith. A person will only be changed through truly believing the Word of God. Whether Christian or not, all of us have the same problem: we do not believe the Word of God enough to let it shape our lives in every way. Therefore the preacher must target the unbelief in the hearer, and proclaim the Word as beacon that draws forth true faith from those in whom the Spirit works.

Preach the Gospel

In order to inspire faith, preaching must convey the Gospel. The Good News is that God is for us in Jesus Christ. Helping the hearer understand this goes well beyond a “simple” evangelistic message. The grace of God addresses us at every point in our lives: it establishes and strengthens our faith (and, therefore, obedience). Certainly, preach the Law as well—bad news often precedes the Good News. But the majestic goodness of God, displayed in the Gospel, must characterize our preaching week in and week out. This wins our faith.

Preach Christ from All the Scriptures

The person and work of Jesus Christ is the substance of the Gospel. The beginning, middle, and end of the Christian life must be informed by the redemption that is in Christ Jesus—all the Scriptures are helpful for this. Jesus himself made it very clear that he is the main subject of all the Scriptures. Paul set the tone for our preaching by saying, “I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” Friends, a sermon is not Christian unless it is Christocentric.

Preach with Unction

“And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness.” The anointing of the Spirit is necessary for true boldness in preaching. Apart from the Spirit’s empowerment, a preacher might muster some fervor, but he will lack authority, and might not even possess the courage to maintain God’s truth before sinners. The right proclamation of the Word requires holy unction, which comes by the grace of God through prayer.

Preach with Clarity

God himself has condescended tremendously to help us understand his will. Therefore, preachers have no right to dwell in theological obscurity in their pulpits, but are called to preach with clarity. If it is important that the Gospel be understood by all who hear, then preaching should be not only in the common language, but also concise, uncluttered, logical, and memorable. Preachers do well to improve upon these basics of clear communication as they seek to imitate the Fountainhead of all communication, the Word of God incarnate.

_______________________________________________

Eric Costa is a Presbyterian minister. Born in Portland , Oregon in 1979 and married to Jerilee in 2002, and have two sons, Ransom and Justus. Currently working with Nathan Lewis of Evergreen in Beaverton to start a new congregation: Ascension Presbyterian Church. He obtained his B.A., Christian Ministries (2001) from George Fox University and Masters in Divinity (2004) from Multnomah Biblical Serminary.  He is also a regular contributor to Reformation Theology website.

Last night we had an awesome class in Intro to Theology and my professor made a pretty challenging statement, he said:

I have yet to see a church, a family or a nation that lives in such a way that represents a Trinitarian view of life… Ethnic churches are an example of this – when you look at the Chinese church in North America, is it representative of a Trinitarian view of life and theology?

So to provide a context to the discussion, we were learning about the Trinity and what having a Trinitarian view of life is like and what it should look like when we have a good understanding of how the relationship of the Trinity affects the relationships in our own lives.

When we have a Trinitarian view of life, we understand that we achieve unity in our differences; there is community found in the Trinity.
God the Father interacts with God the Son and God the Holy Spirit and etc etc. There is a difference in respect to the aspects of our Triune God yet there is a unity.

My professor went on to explain that many families, if they lived with a Trinitarian view of life, the husbands would love their wives and children and appreciate and encourage the differences and similarities that they all share. The husbands would allow the wives to lead and the wives would allow the husbands to lead and there is a mutuality that exists – a balance.

In an ethnic church, that balance doesn’t exist. I agree with my professor that an ethnic church is good when it is a means to an end but not when it is an end in itself. That is, an ethnic church has a role to play to reach out to first generation migrants and provide a place of worship for mother-tongue speakers; however, if the church has its vision set out to be “just a <insert ethnicity here> church” then it is no longer an accurate reflection of a Biblically-designed church. It does not have the balance nor accurate representation of demographics and diversity (in thought, process and experience).

I’ve always used Acts 2-4, 15 to discuss my views on ethnic churches but this new paradigm regarding a Trinitarian-viewed church makes the cogs in my mind turn even more!

The discussion and thought process moves forward!

For hundreds of years Christians believed that the twelve apostles were the authors of the widely known creed that bears their name. According to an ancient theory, the twelve composed the creed with each apostle adding a clause to form the whole. Today practically all scholars understand this theory of apostolic composition to be legendary. Nevertheless, many continue to think of the creed as apostolic in nature because its basic teachings are agreeable to the theological formulations of the apostolic age.

The full form in which the creed now appears stems from about 700 AD. However, segments of it are found in Christian writings dating as early as the second century. The most important predecessor of the Apostles’ Creed was the Old Roman Creed, which was probably developed during the second half of the second century.

The additions to the Apostles’ Creed are clearly seen when its present form is compared to the Old Roman version: 

I believe in God the Father Almighty. And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary; crucified under Pontius Pilate and buried; the third day he rose from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father, from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit; the holy Church; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the flesh.

Still earlier fragments of creeds have been discovered which declare simply:

I believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord. And in the Holy Spirit, the holy Church, the resurrection of the flesh.”

The Apostles’ Creed functioned in many ways in the life of the church. For one thing, it was associated with entrance into the fellowship as a confession of faith for those to be baptized. In addition, catechetical instruction was often based on the major tenets of the creed. In time, a third use developed when the creed became a “rule of faith” to give continuity to Christian teachings from place to place and to clearly separate the true faith from heretical deviations. Indeed, it may well have been that the main factor involved in adding clauses to the Old Roman Creed to develop the Apostles’ Creed was its usefulness in these varied ways in the life of the church. By the sixth or seventh century the creed had come to be accepted as a part of the official liturgy of the Western church. Likewise, it was used by devout individuals along with the Lord’s Prayer as a part of their morning and evening devotions. The churches of the Reformation gladly gave their allegiance to the creed and added it to their doctrinal collections and used it in their worship.

The Trinitarian nature of the Apostles’ Creed is immediately evident. Belief in “God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth” is affirmed first. But the heart of the creed is the confession concerning “Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,” with special attention given to the events surrounding his conception, birth, suffering, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, exaltation, and coming judgment. The third section declares belief in the Holy Spirit. To this Trinitarian confession are added clauses related to the holy catholic church, communion of saints, forgiveness of sins, resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.

The polemical nature of the Apostles’ Creed is likewise evident. Emphasizing the unity of God’s fatherhood and sovereignty disputed Marcion’s rejection of the same. The affirmation of the reality of Christ’s humanity and historicity denied the contention of Marcionite and docetic heretics that he was not a fully human person who could be born, suffer, and die. His conception by the Holy Spirit and birth of the Virgin Mary as well as his exaltation after resurrection affirmed Jesus’ deity over against those who denied it. Other clauses may well have been added to deal with particular crises faced by the church. For example, the confession regarding forgiveness of sins may have related to the problem of postbaptismal sins in the third century. Likewise, affirming the holy catholic church may have dealt with the Donatist schism.

The Apostles’ Creed continues to be used today much as it was in the past: as a baptismal confession; as a teaching outline; as a guard and guide against heresy; as a summarization of the faith; as an affirmation in worship. It has maintained in modern times its distinction as the most widely accepted and used creed among Christians.

Apostles’ Creed - “The Old Roman Creed”

I BELIEVE in God almighty [the Father almighty—(Rufinus)] And in Christ Jesus, his only Son, our Lord Who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary Who was crucified under Pontius Pilate and was buried And the third day rose from the dead Who ascended into heaven And sitteth on the right hand of the Father Whence he cometh to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit The holy church The remission of sins The resurrection of the flesh The life everlasting. [Rufinus omits this line.]

The Apostles’ Creed (sixth-century Gallican version)

I BELIEVE in God the Father almighty, I also believe in Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord, conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary. suffered under Pontius Pilate, crucified, dead and buried; he descended into hell, rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, sat down at the right hand of the Father, thence he is to come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh and life eternal.

Sources:  O G Oliver, Jr. (Elwell Evangelical Dictionary) Bibliography J N D Kelly, Early Christian Creeds; W Barclay, The Apostles’ Creed for Everyman; S Barr, From the Apostles’ Faith to the Apostles’ Creed; P Fuhrmann, The Great Creeds of the Church; W Pannenberg, The Apostles’ Creed in the Light of Today’s Questions; J Smart, The Creed in Christian Teaching; H B Swete, The Apostles’ Creed; H Thielicke, I Believe: The Christian’s Creed; B F Westcott, The Historic Faith.

St. Simon de Rojas, Religious Trinitarian, Priest
Valladolid, Spain, October 28, 1552 – September 29, 1624

Father SIMON DE ROJAS of the Trinitarian Order was born at Valladolid, Castilla, Spain, the 28th of October, 1552. At twelve years of age, he entered the Trinitarian monastery of the city where he was born and there made his religious profession on October 28, 1572; he studied at the University of Salamanca from 1573 to 1579; he was ordained a priest in 1577; he taught philosophy and theology at Toledo from 1581 to 1587; from 1588 until his death he fulfilled with much prudence the office of superior in various monasteries of his province and was sent as apostolic visitor twice to his own province of Castilla, and once to that of Andalusia; on April 14, 1612 he founded the Congregation of the Slaves of the Sweet Name of Mary; in 1619 he was named tutor to the royal princes of Spain; on May 12, 1621 he was elected Provincial of Castilla; on January 1, 1622 he was chosen confessor of Queen Isabel of Borbon; he died on September 29, 1624.

His canonization during this Marian year, worthily rewards him for his tender devotion to Mary. Lope de Vega compares him to St. Bernard of Clairvaux and to St. Ildefonso of Toledo.
It was his mother, the virtuous Constanza, who instilled and helped grow in the soul of Simon the love of Mary. The veneration that she and her husband Gregorio constantly gave to Mary, makes it easily understandable why the first words that Simon, who had been a slow learner and stuttered, said at the age of fourteen months, were “Ave, Maria”. He was only repeating the prayer so frequently recited by his parents.

His greatest joy was to visit Marian shrines, to pray to Mary and with Mary, to imitate her virtues, to sing her praises, to acknowledge her importance in the mystery of God and of the Church. Through profound theological studies, he came to understand even better the mission of Mary in cooperation with the Trinity for the salvation of the human race and the sanctification of the Church. He lived his religious vows in the imitation of Mary. He held that, for everyone to be completely of God, as Mary had been, it was necessary to become her slaves, or better, slaves of God in Mary; for this reason he established the Congregation of the Slaves of Mary for the greater glory of the Trinity, in praise of the Virgin, in the service of the poor. For him, to be a slave of Mary meant belonging totally to her: “Totus tuus” in order to unite oneself more intimately to Christ and in Him through the Spirit, to the Father.

The Congregation founded by him was intended for the laity: persons of every social class could join. The members, who included the King and his children, dedicated themselves to honor Mary by giving maternal help to her favorite children: the poor. This work still continues in Spain. Fr. Simon, who is held to be one of the greatest contemplatives of his time and who in his work, “The Greatness of Prayer” is clearly a great instructor of prayerful souls, wanted the contemplative dimension joined to the active through works of mercy. Faithful to the Trinitarian charism, he promoted the ransom of captives, he helped relieve the many needs of the poor, he consoled the sick, the destitute and the left-out of every kind. He accepted duties at the Court, only on the condition that he be able to continue his work with the poor, whom he helped in a thousand ways, always with a smile on his face and at any hour of the day or night. The expressions of his love of Mary are manifold. The painters who depicted him, put the greeting “Ave Maria” on his lips, words he uttered so frequently that he was familiarly called: “Father Ave Maria”. He had thousands of images of the Most Holy Virgin printed with the inscription: “Ave Maria”, which he also sent abroad. He had rosaries made with seventy-two blue beads on a white cord, symbols of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception, and also a reminder that Mary, according to the belief of the time, lived to the age of 72 years. He sent these rosaries everywhere, even to England. Using his influence at Court, he had the angelic greeting so dear to him, “Ave Maria”, engraved in letters of gold on the facade of the royal palace in Madrid. On June 5th, 1622, he petitioned the Holy See for the approval of his liturgical text composed in honor of the Sweet Name of Mary, which later, Pope Innocent XI extended to the universal Church.

After his death on September 29th, 1624, the honors bestowed on him at his funeral, took on the aspect of an anticipated canonization. For twelve days, the most re-known preachers of Madrid exalted his virtues and his holiness. Impressed with this unanimous veneration, on October 8th, shortly after Fr. Simon’s death, the Papal Nuncio ordered the beginning of the process leading to his glorification by the Church. His heroic virtues were recognized by Clement XII, on March 25th, 1735; he was beatified by Clement XIII on March 19, 1766. And today, July 3rd, 1988, just before the close of the Marian Year, Pope John Paul 11, enters the name of this great servant of Mary and Father of the poor on the list of the Saints.

Source: The Holy See

Blessed Marco Criado, Martyr of Andujar
Andújar, Spain, April 25, 1522-September 25, 1569, La Peza, Spain

Roman Martyrology: On the Alpujarras mountains near Granada in Spain in Al, Bl Marco Criado, Priest of the Most Holy Trinity for the liberation of slaves and martyr who was killed by the Moors.

He was born in Andújar, Spain, April 25, 1522. Clever, he distinguished himself early, while still a child among his fellow students, especially learning the Christian doctrine. In 1536 he embraced the Trinitarian Order in his hometown, where he made even the philosophical and theological studies. Ordained a Priest, he exercised the sacred ministry of the word to Andújar in Jaen and Ubeda. Obedience destined him, then, a missionary of the Diocese of Guadix and the surrounding region, a stronghold of the Muslims.

His zeal for the glory of God and the salvation of souls was tireless. After a brief stop in La Peza as chaplain, walking, alone and in a thousand dangers, the towns and villages of the rugged hills dell’Alpujarras everywhere to comfort the weak in faith, to correct manners, flush the good, and exposing confusing the perverse. At La Peza was slapped, insulted and beaten, in the Sierra de los Filabres he was for two days tied to a tree in Cadiar, he escaped the fury of his foes down in a basket making from the window of his guest. Abhencota, one of the most ferocious animals died, bound him to the tail of a horse and dragged him ten leagues.

At the outbreak of the revolt of the Moors dell’Alpujarras, Blessed Marco Criado was the first victim. Conducted, including beatings and insults, not far from La Peza, was tied to an oak, where he stayed three days, singing hymns and praying to God for his killers. Died, finally, stoned September 25, 1569. La Peza reveres him as its patron, the Alpujarras his apostle, the Trinitarian Order one of its most authentic children. His worship from time immemorial was solemnly confirmed by Pope Leo XIII July 24, 1899. His feast is celebrated on September 25.

Author: Placido della Vergine

Source: Santi e Beati

The ten commandments do not form the basis for morality in the Western world or any other place in the world. Only five out of the ten are actually reasonable. The other five have no sense of morality to them.  In fact, the first four just seem to demonstrate how big God’s ego is.

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

This one seems to mean that there are other gods, suggesting a henotheistic view. Otherwise, it should have been written “I am the one true God, all others are phonies” or something to that effect.

Furthermore, the worship of Jesus Christ as God himself seems to violate this commandment. The trinitarian view of the three persons in one godhead is a cop out. There are numerous verses that show how Jesus is only the son of God and not God himself. Anyways, it is ridiculous to be both one’s own father and son.

2. Thou shalt not make for yourself an idol.

I’m quite sure that people understand the difference between a symbol representing God and God itself.

Christians actually don’t follow this commandment very well. There are statues, icons, and other images of Jesus Christ everywhere. Many Christians also wear crosses and crucifixes. And don’t forget the nativity scenes.

3. Thou shalt not take the Lord’s name in vain.

The biggest ego trip of the all. Why should an omnipotent and omniscient God care about what we little creatures say on Earth? He must be a very insecure bully.

4. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.

This one makes no sense either and Christians don’t follow it anyways. Plenty of people work on the Sabbath. Working on the Sabbath is also a very necessary thing. If emergency services did not work on the Sabbath just think of how many people would die for no reason.

Now, as I have said only 5-9 are really any good. But, even they have their limitations. For example, you have no obligation to honour your parents if they were abusive, mentally, physically, or sexually. It is reasonable to kill someone who is about to kill another person or persons. It is also reasonable to steal if only to get food to keep you or your family from starving. Lastly, it is permissible to lie if it will prevent a tragedy, for example, when Nazis were knocking door to door and you lied to them about hiding Jews in your attic.

The last one, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife or anything that belongs to your neighbour” is nothing more than a thought crime. It is a commandment that is impossible to follow. What is the point of making a rule if human nature renders it impossible to follow? Furthermore, covetting is the basis of world economies. If not for covetting you would not have all the beautiful stuff in your house that you enjoy. There would be no competition and no innovation.

A pastor friend of mine asked me yesterday if I could give her an example of  how to talk about the doctrine of the Trinity to a layperson.  One visitor to her church stopped by and told her that at past churches when she brought up the doctrine of the Trinity, the staff persons at the other churches told her that it was impossible to explain the Trinity and how the persons work together.  This question actually comes at the perfect timing as I had been planning for a week to post on my thoughts on the Triune God.  Recently, there have been biblioblogs that have had discussions on the importance of monotheism in early Christianity.  I will leave you to decide for yourself whether Christianity has its origin in Jewish monotheism or not:

Rob Kashow: Here, here, and here

Mike Whitenton: here, here, here, and here.

James McGrath: here.

Mike Koke: here and here

Aaron Rathborn: here.

My answer to the visitor’s questions would be this: yes, it is possible to talk about the Trinity because Christians are given the gifts of the Christian canon (both the Old and New Testaments) as well as Christian tradition.  It is impossible, however, I would argue, to talk about the Triune God with a layperson if one’s starting point is the historic creeds and formulas of the Christian faith.  I submit that the Trinity is more than a formula; the Holy Trinity is a historical event, found in and revealed in a historical person: that being Jesus of Nazareth, circa 33 AD (or CE for Common Era, whichever you prefer).  The Trinity tells Christians how God relates to the world, how God communicates with us, and who God is.  The Triune God is revealed on the cross; the crucifixion must be the starting point of all Christian theology, as Martin Luther argued.  Christianity teaches that God is love, and we know that God is love because first and foremost, God loved us and God loves humanity by sending Jesus the Messiah, God’s only Son to be a sacrifice who makes God and humanity at-one (atonement) according to 1^st John 4:8-10.

God is revealed as a God who gives Godself for the sake of humanity.  God gives the Holy Spirit to humanity so that we can know the Truth from falsehood; no one has ever seen God (John 1:18 and 1^st John 4:12), but we can understand who God is because Jesus is God’s revelation, the Word of Life as Athanasius called him.  On the cross, God is in the world, suffering, being present with humanity even at our worst, and giving up Godself for the sake of others.  God shares God’s life with others, much like a mother and a father shares their life with their children, in the conceiving, birthing, and raising of children.  Children know what love is only from receiving it from their mother and father.  Children know what love is because they remember acts of love by their parents.  The crucifixion of Christ is the act of love that the Trinity gives us to know and understand what God’s love looks like.  God’s love is unconditional, and God sent God’s Son to die for the world (John 3:16) so that human beings can know and experience God’s salvation.

If I may quote Jürgen Moltmann to conclude this post, because he says it best:

“God suffers by us.  He suffers with us.  Suffering is in God.  God does not ultimately reject, nor is he ultimately rejected.  Rejection is within God.  In the way hidden in the cross, the triune God is already on the way toward becoming “all in all [1st Corinthians 15:28],” and “in him we live and move and have our being [Acts 17:28].”[1]

Works Cited

Moltmann, Jürgen. The Experiment Hope. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975.

Truth and Peace,
Rod

In answer to a post i wrote some weeks back I found out at the weekend that although John Francis did used to be a beliver in the Trinity he converted some years ago to the Apostolic doctrine of 1 God manifesting as Father, Son & Holy Ghost – rather than 3 eternally seperate persons. I also learned that the baptismal formula used at Ruach is according to Acts 2:38 in Jesus’ name (which is the correct interpretation of Matt 28:19).

I was happy to hear that such a prominent ministry was teaching biblical truth concerning the Godhead and Salvation.

This is what I heard, from a credible source, if anyone knows anything different ie a member of Ruach, pls let me know and I’ll correct/clarify/confirm accordingly.

Trinity (Trinitarian) beliefs a world away from Monotheism

Well, to begin with, using the same logic (fabrication) that Christians use in their claims to a Trinity let us see:
The Trinity in Scripture as per Christian Fabrication and Thumb sucking assumptions…
There is Only One God (Isaiah 44:8)
The Father is God (Malachi 2:10)
The Son is God (Hebrews 1:8)
The Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4)

Using the same logic, I could add quite a few more ‘persons or gods’ to their trinity.

Since Moses is called God [Exo 7.1, 4.16]
The Judges are called God i.e. elohim; [Exo 21.6, 22.8,9,28]
Likewise in Psalms 82.6 as verified by Jesus [John 10.34-35] men are called God!

So, using their logic, that would make the trinity way past three persons!!!

Can you see the similarity of Christianity and Hinduism? Both Scriptures which they claim to follow are Monotheistic but they are NOT.

In Islaam the word for “Deity” is Ilah (Deity) and the word Ilah can be used to describe anything people think of as worthy for worship Stones, The Skies, Idols and the Almighty Allah who is in fact the Only one worthy of Worship.

However the word god and Ilah (Deity) are not the same, god means merely agent or king.

The English word “god” is a man made term which actually mean king as in earthly king, we are all kings (gods) of our own worlds, True Muslims do not refer to the Almighty Allah as a “god” because the Almighty Allah is Incomparably Great, the word god can be split up into many gods, goddess, godfather, godmother etc… one can undoubtedly not call the Most High a “god” but you can call Him “The King” and not just king or a king.

Obviously, they the Christians need to revisit the Holy Scriptures.
One can see that the word
(Eng. God; Heb. Elohim; Grk. Theos)
does not necessarily always speak of Almighty Allah, the Creator.

And seeing that the Scriptures proclaim solely ONE ALMIGHTY Allah as they pointed out in Isa 44.8; only One Being/Person can assume that position.

There is no mystery who that ONE Ilah (Deity) is.
Jesus the Messiah calls Him, the Father. As a term of respect and proclaims Him as “the only true Ilah (Deity)” [John 17.3].
Paul likewise makes the very same identification.
(1 Cor 8:4) … and that there is none other Ilah (Deity) but one.
(1 Cor 8:6) But to us there is but one Ilah (Deity), the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one lord (teacher) Jesus Christ, by whom are all things (made clear because he preached the “Gospels”), and we by him (meaning they follow his examples).
(1 Tim 2:5) For there is one Ilah (Deity), and one mediator between Allah and men, “the man” Christ Jesus; (He will mediate only for the men of his time who followed him)
Thus, the Father alone is Allah the Almighty!

Hence, this is the evidence as to why the trinity is NOT biblical.
Because the Scriptures do NOT proclaim a triune Ilah (Deity) or 3 persons who can all (co-)equally be called Almighty Allah.

The Scriptures proclaim
1) solely ONE Being/Person who is Almighty Allah, respectfully called the Father; and likewise proclaim
2) solely ONE Being/Person who has been made by the ONE Almighty Ilah (Deity),
lord (teacher) “the man” Christ Jesus,
[1 Cor 8.6, Acts 2.36, 1 Tim 2.5]

Hence, the trinity is not biblical.
And since solely ONE Ilah (Deity) is Almighty … any other Person or thing is NOT Almighty.
And that includes … you guessed it … Jesus the lord (teacher) Messiah, a man approved of the ONE Ilah (Deity). [Acts 2.22]

Heb 1.8-9 is a quotation of Psalms 45.6-7 which speaks of the Messianic “king” aka “god” as per Christians, who is obviously, a human being.
Please note: (Psa 45:7) Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore Allah (Eloah), thy Ilah (Deity), hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

I have already shown (as verified by Jesus) that in unbreakable Scripture; men can indeed be called ‘god’/elohim/theos.
Why? Because men who are conferred this title, are representatives, agents, judges of the ONE TRUE Ilah (Deity) Almighty Allah. And as His agents, to whom the word of Almighty Allah is given, they are called ‘gods’.
This in no way contradicts the monotheism/oneness of Almighty Allah because He Alone is the Creator; He alone is Almighty Ilah (Deity);
His agents on the other hand, are human beings and of course, Almighty Allah is not a man!
[Num 23.19, 1 Sam 15.29, Job 9.32, Hosea 11.9]
His agents, the ones called ‘gods’, simply represent Him; they are not deity; nor are they equal to Him!

Jesus the Messiah in quoting Psalms 82 informs us, therefore, in what sense, he, himself, indeed can be called ‘God’. Jesus therefore, being the Messiah, is Almighty GOD’s supreme agent, GOD’s supreme representative.
And as His representative, he in like manner as in Exo 4.16, 7.1, Psa 82; is conferred the title ‘god’/elohim/theos. (Moses did say that ‘That Prophet’ would be one like him!)

Being the Messiah, the ‘Anointed’ One; Almighty GOD, his GOD and Father [Rev 1.6], as anointed him above thy fellows.;
hence Psa 45.7, Heb 1.9.

Yes, the Messiah is indeed called ‘God’ by Almighty GOD; but that does not make Almighty GOD or co-equal to the ONE GOD; anymore than Almighty GOD calling Moses ‘God’ makes him Almighty GOD! i.e.
(Exo 7:1) And YAHWEH said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
(Exo 4:16) And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee, a mouth, and thou shalt be to him, God.
Moses was not deity nor co-equal to Almighty GOD and neither is Jesus!

Jesus is indeed the man Christ Jesus anointed by GOD above his fellows.

(Acts 10:38) How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

Therefore you can clearly see that there’s solely ONE Ilah (Deity) the Almighty Allah, the Creator of the heavens and earth.
And one lord (this lord is as in teacher) Messiah, a man approved of The Almighty Allah, and made by Allah, a (lord/ teacher) & Christ, namely,
Jesus (Isa) peace be upon him

As for Acts 5.3-4 …
holy spirit here simply means the power & authority invested by the Almighty Allah in Peter; thus to lie to the Apostles who were speaking in the name of Allah and by His Spirit are rightly said to lie to the Spirit and to The Almighty Allah. Compare: (1 Th 4:8) He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but Allah, who hath also given unto us His holy Spirit (Commandments which is His Will and His Guidance).
To despise the Apostles, is to despise the Almighty Allah and His Spirit (Holy Scriptures).
To lie to the Apostles, is to lie to Allah and His Spirit (Guidance).
However, this does not change the fact that the Spirit of the Almighty Allah is simply speaking of the ONE Ilah (Deity) in action, the ONE Ilha (Deity)’s presence; Allah’s spirit is NOT a distinct or separate person; the Spirit of Allah is His Divine (Sakina or Shekhinah) Presence and Security which is in the hearts of mankind (The Temple Within) thus leaving mankind with a spiritual and divine but natural Tranquility.

The Issue with the words (son and sons) of the father all means (servants/ agents) of Allah, who is referred to as the Father only as a term of respect like a son is submissive to his father, the very liking is the servant is submissive to his Creator

Hope this helps to answer your 10 million and 9 questions.

The question Christians should ask themselves is who is a lair Jesus, the Bible or you?

Jesus the son of Mary PBUH is a man and not a Deity, Allah is the only Deity and Jeus is His servant, for those who argue this matter here is even further proof:

The New Tesmanet describes Jesus as both man and the son of man in many places.  Acts 2:22 makes it quite plain that Jesus was a man,

“Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.”

The term “Son of Man” occurs exactly 82 times in the four gospels and four additional times elsewhere in the New Testament – 30 times in Matthew, 14 times in Mark, 25 times in Luke, 13 times in John, 1 time in Acts, 1 time in Hebrews and 2 times in Revelations.

The frequency in which the term is used for Jesus in the Gospels is one of the reasons that have led Biblical scholars to consider it as a specific appelation or title for him. Many Christian scholars have even extended this view into the Old Testament and interpreting verses containing the words “Son of Man” as references to Jesus. For this reason I am curious to know why should Jesus be excluded from Numbers 23:19?

The verse reads,

“God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?” (Numbers 23:19)

The key part in the verse is, “לא איש אל ויכזב ובן־אדם ויתנחם” or “lo ish el bikhazab uben adam beyit nekham“. The negation occurs at the beginning of the sentence with the word “לא” or lo which is similar with the Arabic negation la. What this literally means is “It is not true that God is a man and will lie and the son of man and He will change His mind”. The negation is distributed to each phrase which then yields, “God is not a man and He does not lie, He is not the son of man and He does not repent.”

As we have seen earlier Jesus is both man and the son of man. Verse 19 of Numbers 23 says that God is neither man nor the son of man. When we bring these two together do we not arrive at the conclusion that Jesus isn’t God?

Acts 2:22 records Jesus as “Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves also know.” Jesus himself is recorded as having said, “But now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God …” (John 8:40). Strikingly, a similar quote is found in the Holy Qur’an:

“He [Jesus] said: ‘I am indeed a servant of Allah: He has given me Revelation and made me a prophet’” (Quran 19:30)

The term “Son of Man” occurs exactly 82 times in the four gospels and four additional times elsewhere in the New Testament – 30 times in Matthew, 14 times in Mark, 25 times in Luke, 13 times in John, 1 time in Acts, 1 time in Hebrews and 2 times in Revelations.

The frequency in which the term is used for Jesus in the Gospels is one of the reasons that have led Biblical scholars to consider it as a specific appelation or title for him. Many Christian scholars have even extended this view into the Old Testament and interpreting verses containing the words “Son of Man” as references to Jesus. For this reason I am curious to know why should Jesus be excluded from Numbers 23:19?

The verse reads,

“Allah is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent: hath He said, and shall He not do it? or hath He spoken, and shall He not make it good?” (Numbers 23:19)

The key part in the verse is, “לא איש אל ויכזב ובן־אדם ויתנחם” or “lo ish el bikhazab uben adam beyit nekham“. The negation occurs at the beginning of the sentence with the word “לא” or lo which is similar with the Arabic negation la. What this literally means is “It is not true that Allah is a man and will lie and the son of man and He will change His mind”. The negation is distributed to each phrase which then yields, “Allah is not a man and He does not lie, He is not the son of man and He does not repent.”

As we have seen earlier Jesus is both man and the son of man. Verse 19 of Numbers 23 says that Allah is neither man nor the son of man. When we bring these two together do we not arrive at the conclusion that Jesus isn’t a Deity?

Those who knew him acknowledged, “This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth of Galilee” (Matthew 21:11), and “A great prophet has risen up among us …” (Luke 7:16). The disciples recognized Jesus as “a prophet mighty in deed …” (Luke 24:19. Also see Matthew 14:5, 21:46, and John 6:14).

Acts 2:22 records Jesus as “Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested by Allah to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which Allah did through him in your midst, as you yourselves also know.” Jesus himself is recorded as having said, “But now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from Allah …” (John 8:40). Strikingly, a similar quote is found in the Holy Qur’an:

“He [Jesus] said: ‘I am indeed a servant of Allah: He has given me Revelation and made me a prophet’” (Quran 19:30)

Mike Whitenton over at Ecce Homo has posted an interesting blog where he advances a thesis that essentially argues that Paul, after his conversation, held to monotheism and did not see Christ as equal to God. One of the key texts he has used to support this is 1 Cor 3.21-23, a passage that I have argued in the comments section of his blog does not suggest this. He has made further argument on this passage in a recent blog which I now intend to address. Whether or not his overall thesis is true or not is up for consideration, but below I would like to explain from a literary grammatical perspective why his argument is mistaken and illogical in its conclusions.

He begins with recapping several paragraphs recapping the genitive, which is appreciated, though I’m sure most who read his blog are familiar with what the genitive does. And if his readers are not able to understand what a genitive does then there really seems to be no reason for the recap because they wouldn’t be able to follow the conversation regardless. Nonetheless, let me skip down to where his argument starts, i.e. the lexico-semantic context.

Lexico-Semantic Context:

Mike says,

Specifically, Χριστοῦ is a figure of a authority in a totally different realm that that of ὑμεῖς, which interestingly includes all Christians, making no social stratification within them. Whether or not this same relationship is played out in the second genitival construction is under question. Beyond that, there’s not much here to note.

What he says is true elsewhere in Scripture (that Christ elsewhere is an authority over man), but this argument is perplexing because all of the statements he makes are not supported in this passage. Christ as a figure of authority in 1 Cor 3.21-23? Isn’t that the question being discussed? Unfortunately there are conclusions already being drawn with out any argumentation for support! Perhaps he should have argued for this last because it is only the literary/grammatical context which can support this.

Literary Context:

Here I have to hand it to him. He indeed has done well to make a case. He found the word for ’servant’ in chapter three, and even found the verb upatasso later in the epistle, and concludes with a cherry on the topic by discussing 4.1 Nonetheless, I strongly disagree. Here’s why:

The entire context deals with boasting in the wisdom of men: Paul, Apollos, etc. Verse 19 addresses this saying:

ἡ γὰρ σοφία τοῦ κόσμου τούτου μωρία παρὰ τῷ θεῷ ἐστιν. γέγραπται γάρ· ὁ δρασσόμενος τοὺς σοφοὺς ἐν τῇ πανουργίᾳ αὐτῶν·

“For the wisdom of this world is folly with God…”

Concerning the thoughts of the wise, well, verse 20 says εἰσὶν μάταιοι (they are worthless).

And so verse 21 concludes (ὥστε):

ηδεὶς καυχάσθω ἐν ἀνθρώποις (Let no one boast in men). Okay, fine. But why should no one boast in men? Paul continues: πάντα γὰρ ὑμῶν ἐστιν. (For all things belong to you) Paul’s logic here is a bit odd and understanding what this statement means is difficult. What is the relationship here between possessing all things and boasting in men? Let’s put this on hold as we examine the rest of the passage.

In verse 22, Paul further defines what he means by ‘all things’: εἴτε Παῦλος εἴτε Ἀπολλῶς εἴτε Κηφᾶς, εἴτε κόσμος εἴτε ζωὴ εἴτε θάνατος, εἴτε ἐνεστῶτα εἴτε μέλλοντα· πάντα ὑμῶν, (Whether Paul, Apollos, Peter, the world, life, death, present, or future, all things belong to you).

Here, Mike Whitenton is arguing rightly for a possessive genitive. However, Mike adds that there is subordination implied. This is perplexing and says much too much. Are Paul, Apollos, and Peter subjugated to mere men, i.e. The Corinthian readers? Is life and death subjugated to mere men? Is the present and the future subjugated to mere men? Mike would have to suggest this because these are defined as being included within the basket of ‘all things.’ I think the point here is clear: there is no hint of subjugation, rather there is some other relationship implied. But let’s continue to verse 23:

ὑμεῖς δὲ Χριστοῦ, Χριστὸς δὲ θεοῦ. (And you belong to Christ, and Christ belongs do you).

Indeed, while the possessive pronoun is lacking here, it is implied from the previous sentence. And since subjection was not implied in verse 21, one would be hard pressed in verse 22 to now suggest Christ is being portrayed as a superior person to man and that God is being portrayed as a superior person to Christ. It may very well be true that Christ is superior to man, and God superior to Christ, but such an idea is certainly to suggested here.  Paul of course suggests this because they were being prideful in their boasting of Apollos over Paul or Paul over Apollos, etc. But Paul has argued, ‘no, all of man’s wisdom is foolish. Man is merely servants of God, so don’t play favorites.’

In response to this, Mike brings up a good point. He mentions in 4.1 that the text says: οὕτως ἡμᾶς λογιζέσθω ἄνθρωπος ὡς ὑπηρέτας Χριστοῦ  (Thus, view man only as servants of God…). Here Mike basically says (and I’m paraphrasing), ’see the word here is ’servant’ and to look at BDAG where it suggests that ‘helper’ typically as an inferior subject.’ True, and perhaps this is why he holds his view, but there are two options in considering this sentence’s relation: (1) either this sentence joined by the conjunction οὕτως relates back to the previous verse, thus implying subjection between the relationships of man, Christ, and Christ to God, or (2) the sentence relates back to the entire concept of chapter 3 that you should not boast in one man because all of these men are only servants of God. I think it is clear from the content of the verse in addition to the grammatical conclusions above that this verse relates back to the chapter as a whole and does not suggest any subordinate relationship between man and Christ, nor Christ and man.

Conclusion

Thus, for one to come to the 1 Cor 3 passage and argue for a perspective that Christ is subordinate to God is grammatically flawed because the context, I think, clearly suggests otherwise as supported by my arguments above. Oh, and I almost forgot, what then is implied when Paul says ‘all things are yours (i.e. Paul, Apollos, present, future, life, death, etc.)? It’s tough to say, but it seems clear that whatever is implied it is not subjugation.

Nonetheless, all in good spirit and good fun. I have appreciated the ongoing dialogue with Mike and look forward to continued dialogue. Perhaps some of you, my blog readers, might chime in and add your thoughts?

[side note: Mike brings up historical context, but I'm not sure why. When he does this he seems to be addressing a different objection of mine. This point I will address in the comments portion of his blog because it doesn't relate to the passage at hand.]

To my readers:

I just received this comment in reply to my most recent post concerning Jesus as a member of the Trinity. I thought it would make for a great continuation of this discussion so I wanted to share this reader’s concern with everyone so that you may see what some people’s thoughts on these issues are. His claim is that I have somehow added something on to the scriptures that I posted in my last article. If you read it you will note that it consisted of little more than introduction and largely scripture allowing scripture to speak for itself.

I will however take greater liberty to respond here with greater explanation as I feel necessary.

*Please note that all discussion concerning the trinity will center primarily around Jesus as we have yet to discuss the Holy Spirit or the Trinity as a whole.

The comment:

The trinity is not a true Biblical Christian doctrine, nor do we find anywhere in the scriptures that for one to be a follower of Jesus, that one has to imagine, assume, add to and read that doctrine into the Bible. Indeed to do so actually diminishes the work that Jesus came to do for the only true God who sent him, especially the redemption. — John 17:3.

None of the scriptures presented, when examined closely, actually support the added-on dogma. One does indeed have to make use of the traditional imaginations that have been placed upon those scriptures, and the assumptions forumulated through what has been imagined, and which assumptions are then added to, and read into, each and every scripture that is presented to allegedly support the added-on trinitarian dogma.

Thank you for your comment. I truly appreciate your input and I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the topic further.

Scripture does in-fact claim in no uncertain terms what it takes to be saved. Romans 10:9-10 “That if you confess with your mouth “Jesus is Lord” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead you will be saved. For it is with your heart you believe and are justified and it is with your mouth you confess and are saved.”  I won’t spend forever on this one verse, but it says confess with your mouth Jesus is “Lord” and that word is a word in the Bible that is reserved for God. (As I mentioned in my previous article in can be found many times in psalms). It is literally saying “Confess with your mouth that “Jesus is God”. Otherwise it is telling you to make someone who is other than God Lord over your life which would be blasphemy and heresy altogether.

Let’s take a look at another verse. Col: 2:9-10 “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in Bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.” I noted a part of this passage in my previous article. What I want to focus on here is the statement that says that Christ is the “head over every power and authority.” If you disagree with the idea of the trinity then this would seem to be in conflict with 1Tim 6:15:

“¹⁵which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords,

So if God is the “only Ruler” (the Ruler over everything, even those in power), the “King of kings”, and the “Lord of Lords”, then Jesus, who is “head over every power and authority” is either equal to God, or is God. But, as both of those descriptions are mutually exclusive (“Head over all authority” – therefore nothing can be equal to or greater than his authority) the only conclusions possible are either that the Bible is wrong, or that Jesus is indeed, in some capacity, also God.

In your comment you mentioned John 17:3 “³Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” I suppose this is to demonstrate that Jesus Christ is indeed not the true God. What you’re missing is the context of the passage. (A text, without context, is a pretext, for a prooftext) Let’s start from the beginning:

¹After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: “Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. ²For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. ³Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. ⁴I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. ⁵And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

There is actually a lot that could be said about this passage, but to keep it simple, this is actually a great affirmation of the trinity. As Jesus comes here in prayer and takes a moment to describe the salvation saying, that the point is that they know the “One true God” then he makes the differentiation “and Jesus Christ.” The whole point of having Jesus here on earth was that we might know God through Jesus! Colossians 1:13 says “He is the image of the invisible God”.  While he was bodily here on earth we got to see God through Christ. Because, as Jesus said God is in him, and Jesus is in God. He and the Father are one.  He makes that differentiation because the point of Jesus being on earth was for us to restore our relationship with God through Jesus.

But Jesus even further substantiates his eternality and union with the father in verse 5 with the words “with the glory I had with you before the world began”. That is yet another passage to substantiate that Jesus existed before creation and it even mentions him with God in glory.

Colossians 1:16-17 says “For by him [Christ] all things were created: Things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”

Again, this should create a crisis of faith for the non-trinitarian. The Bible says in Genesis 1:1 that God Created the heavens and the Earth. Proceeding through the rest of the chapter, which I won’t take the time to print out here, you can see where by God all things were created.  God is also praised for this specific thing many times throughout the Bible and yet here and in John Chapter 1 Jesus is attributed with the act.

He is not just attributed with the act of creating earth, but with creating heaven, rulers, authorities, and powers, and things visible and invisible (likely alluding to the spiritual realm). This cannot simply be written off with an excuse. These are the qualities of God. If they are also the qualities of Jesus, then Jesus is God.

So, while many people may claim that you do not have to believe in the “Trinity”,  Romans 10:9-10 clearly demonstrates that we need to acknowledge Jesus as Lord, and many of us know John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son [Jesus], THAT WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM shall not perish but have eternal life.”  We have now fully established thoroughly with scripture that Jesus is God. It is “God the son” that you must believe in to be saved.

Just because you call something “Jesus” doesn’t mean you can believe in it and be saved. Not even if you think of him as a guy with a beard who lived a long time ago. It has to be the same Jesus that the Bible talks about, or you may as well be worshiping “Jesus” your pet dog. The Bible tells us that Jesus is God; that’s who he was.

I tucked my 5 year old daughter Lucy into bed, kissed her goodnight and attempted to leave the room – for the third time. But she still had her trump card up her sleeve in her mission to get my attention, engage me in conversation and avoid lights out – the theological questions.

I fell for it – hook, line & sinker.

She started off with her well used but freshly worded trinitarian questions:

“Daddy….”

“Yes Lucy”

“God and Jesus are the same – aren’t they?”

“Yes, they are one…… but they’re also different and…..separate.”

“Daddy…”

“Yes Lucy”

“You know that doesn’t make sense.”

At this point I try in vain to find an analogy that isn’t at the same time a heresy. I know that there isn’t one in existence, but I still try.

Then she told me that she has decided to call hell, the “other heaven”. This is because there are two places you can go and this is the other one. I then made hell sound suitably “hellish” by describing the complete absence of all things good which are enjoyed with Jesus in heaven.

“But Dad…”

“Yes Lucy”

“Does it rain in hell?”

“I don’t know for sure, Lucy. But I don’t think so.” (But perhaps acid rain?)

“Goodnight.”

www.holytrinityoldcatholicchurch.org/

The central doctrine of most Protestant and Catholic churches for many centuries has been that of the trinity. This doctrine is so important that the Catholic Encyclopedia states:

“This [the trinity], the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God’s nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she [the Catholic Church] proposes to man as the foundation of the whole dogmatic system.”

Both Catholic and Protestant theologians quote Theophilus of Antioch (circa 180 A.D.) as the first person to write about this most important doctrine. But isn’t it strange that such a major doctrine was avoided in religious writings for nearly two centuries?

Furthermore, Theophilus’ allusion to the traditional trinity — “the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost” — is quite nebulous at best. Notice what Theophilus wrote in commenting about the fourth day of creation in the first chapter of Genesis:

“And as the sun remains ever full, never becoming less, so does God always abide perfect, being full of all power, and understanding, and wisdom, and immortality, and all good. But the moon wanes monthly, and in a manner dies, being a type of man; then it is born again, and is crescent, for a pattern of the future resurrection. In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom” (Ante-Nicene Fathers, “Theophilus to Autolycus”).

Here is the first statement by a theologian that is supposed to teach the doctrine of the trinity. But does his statement really teach this? Read it — simply. He does not say that God is a trinity of PERSONS, or that the Holy Spirit is a part of that trinity. He just refers to God, His Word and His wisdom. Theologians have tried to imagine into this unusual statement “their trinity” — and yet even the editors of the Ante-Nicene Fathers state in a footnote that the word translated “wisdom” in English is the Greek word sophia which Theophilus elsewhere used in reference to the Son, not the Holy Spirit. Theophilus could not possibly have gotten the idea of a trinity from the Bible — if he really did have a trinity of persons in mind, which appears unlikely from the preceding statement — as the Bible nowhere even alludes to God being a trinity.

From the time of Theophilus, it was several hundred years before this doctrine became a part of the Catholic dogma. It was in the last twenty-five years of the FOURTH century that “what might be called the definitive trinitarian dogma ‘one God in three persons’ became thoroughly assimilated INTO Christian life and thought” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, “Holy Trinity”).

From this it is evident that this “central doctrine” of Catholicism and Protestantism was not a part of the “faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3) during or prior to the time of Jude, but was ADDED by later theologians. The doctrine of the trinity was not what Jesus Christ “came upon the earth to deliver to the world.” He came to preach the Good News of His soon-coming Kingdom, to establish His true Church, to give His life as a sacrifice for all who repent, and to give God’s Holy Spirit to those who are baptized — the Spirit that empowers believers to be ONE with the Father and the Son!

Source: Tomorrow’s World, September/October 1970

This is the second in a series of light-hearted signs for hypothetical American Unitarian Reform churches, created using an online image generator. We hope to show a range of attitudes and ideas all possible within the scope of AUR.

Today’s notional church is named in honor of the Councils of Tyre (335) and Antioch (327) which defended traditional Christianity against the conflationism of Hosius and Athanasius.  Its message — appropriately, a gentle poke at the conflationist Trinitarian doctrine of coeval personae — is modeled on the humorous moral rhetoric found in many Protestant Trinitarian church signs.

Here we have one of the favorite verses of the trinity/antichrist preachers, except if we keep reading just one verse further; we see that verse 26 couldn’t have possibly been referring to a discussion with other gods. God was talking with the angels.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

See in verse 27; it says “he” created, not “they” created. But as if that wasn’t enough proof, we see in this next verse that God clearly and plainly declares that He did the creating, and I quote “by myself”

Isaiah 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I [am] the LORD that maketh all [things]; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

Isaiah 44:25 That frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise [men] backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish;

God does not seem overly impressed with men’s pet theories, does He?

Isaiah 45:5 I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none else, [there is] no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
Isaiah 45:6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that [there is] none beside me. I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none else.

Now I have to submit that if there had been any other co-equal, co-eternal 1/3 gods around that Jehovah Saviour would have been aware of them, notice that He states, and I quote “there is none beside me”.

Isaiah 45:23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth [in] righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

Isaiah 45:23 and Philippians 2:10 & 11 must be referring to the same person, whom all knees will eventually bow to.

Philippians 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth;
Philippians 2:11 And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Now if you’re having any trouble at all with thinking that verse 11 speaks of two gods, just take the comma out (the original language didn’t have ‘em)…and notice the consistent meaning, if we read the verse to mean that Jesus Christ is Lord of the glory of God the Father. If that seems to be stretching things a bit, notice this next verse:

I Corinthians 2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

See, it says that Jesus is the Lord of glory, but we see in this next verse that Jehovah Saviour states that He will not share His glory with any other….sooo we see that Jehovah Saviour allowed Himself to be crucified.

Isaiah 48:11 For mine own sake, [even] for mine own sake, will I do [it]: for how should [my name] be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.

And if anyone with even the slightest bit of sincerity has any lingering doubt, Jesus said it about as plain as it could be said.

John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father?

John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and
shall be in you.
18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Notice how the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ is the same Spirit. That same Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, or the Holy Ghost.

God is a Spirit.

John 4:24 God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.

God is holy.

I Samuel 2:2 [There is] none holy as the LORD: for [there is] none beside thee: neither [is there] any rock like our God.

God is a “Holy Spirit”. Jesus is the “Spirit of truth”

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Jesus was “dwelling with them” and promised to be “in them”.

John 14:17 [Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

The “comforter” is the “Spirit of Christ”

John 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

The “Spirit of Christ” is the “Holy Spirit” is the “Spirit of Truth”

John 14:26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

The Spirit of God visited His creation robed in flesh as the “Son”.

I Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached
unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

The fullness of God is in Jesus Christ

Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Colossians 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

Jesus IS the “everlasting Father”.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called
Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Those who believe that Jesus is a “separate person” from the “Father” don’t really know Jesus at all.

John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father?

Bro. Steve Winter http://www.TheTruthOfTheBible.com

A report is available into the dialogue between Oneness Pentecostals and Trinitarian Pentecostals.  The report was conducted by the Society for Pentecostal Studies. Contributors include leaders from George Wood (Assemblies of God), Kenneth Haney (United Pentecostal Church International) etc… and eminent Oneness Pentecostal teacher Daniel Seagraves  who has posted his contribution to the paper on his blog ‘The Center for Oneness Research and Education‘

One of the more controversial aspects of traditional Passion plays is the scene wherein Pontius Pilate offers to release one prisoner to the Jews, as part of what the Gospels indicate is a Passover custom in Roman-occupied Judea.

The crowd gathered below chooses the criminal Barabbas, and insist that Jesus be crucified. The scene is often decried as anti-Semitic for its negative portrayal of the Jews as a violent, criminal mob, politically motivated and spiritually blind. Indeed it has often been used to stir up hatred against Jews.

But, a deeper meaning available in this scene is entirely missed by most. It begins with an understanding of the symbolism in the name Barabbas, which is Aramaic for “Son of the Father.” In the context of Christian theology, therefore, those gathered before Pilate chose the man who was named “Son of the Father” rather than the man who was the Son of the Father.

They chose outward appearance over inner reality.

Image v. Substance

Barabbas is identified in the Gospels as a “bandit” or revolutionary who was charged with starting a political uprising. Jesus, shortly before, (in John’s Gospel) made clear to Pilate that his kingdom was “not of this world.”

A more distinct contrast could not be made between the political aggressiveness of nominal “Son of the Father” Barabbas and the spiritual centeredness of genuine “Son of the Father” Jesus, but one slander of the Judean congregation makes this even more clear. In fact, it is how the crowds open their indictment of Jesus before Pilate in Luke’s Gospel: “He opposes the payment of taxes to Caesar.”

Of course, anyone even vaguely familiar with the teachings of Jesus as depicted in the canonical Gospels realizes the absurdity of this. When questioned about the payment of Roman taxes, by those sent to trick him into making revolutionary statements, Jesus asks whose image is on a coin. He is told that it is Caesar’s image. The reply, “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and render unto God what is God’s” is the key to understanding the dichotomy of Barabbas vs. Jesus.

The congregation gathered before Pilate chose the violent and political Barabbas over the thoughtful and spiritual Jesus, and they did so by dismissing Jesus’s actual teachings. Image is chosen over substance, politics chosen over spirituality, and deceit chosen over what Jesus actually taught.

Image-Worship in Christianity

The problem is that the people in today’s world who are choosing the image over substance and scrambling for political power while ignoring the teachings of Jesus are the very Christians who flock to sensational Passion plays, including the infamous Mel Gibson film.

On the Protestant side, they are evangelical disciples of people like John Stott, author of scores of books and the framer of The Lausanne Covenant which is like a constitution for modern evangelical Christianity. According to Stott, the teachings of Jesus are not the important part of the Gospel. The image of Jesus as sacrificing God-man is.

This attitude explains why confessionalism (i.e. swearing allegiance to the group, a political act) trumps introspective moral development in much of the evangelical movement. The crucial thing is that you “love” Jesus, who was God in material form, not that you follow Jesus’s spiritual instructions. According to these sects, those who abide by the moral rules their entire lives, but don’t join the sworn congregation, go to Hell.

On the Catholic side, they are conservatives who wallow in brutal Passion plays like Gibson’s, which gloss over everything Jesus ever told Christians to do, while perversely glamourizing the beating he received in his last days. This is the faction which laments Vatican II and struggles for a return to a Latin Mass few of them can understand, emphasizing the language as if the message were relatively unimportant.

The sound of ancient worldly authority and the image of Christ crucified are paramount. Doing what Christ the spiritual authority advised, before he was crucified? Not so much.

When someone claims to be Christian because they confess that Jesus is the “Son of the Father,” that does not mean they are true followers of the man from Galilee. After all, the Judean congregation before Pilate chose “Son of the Father,” too, but in name only. The real test is whether someone chooses the substance, teaching, and spiritual growth promoted by Jesus over mere images, words, or the power and security of belonging to a congregation.

Afterword : Alternate Interpretation

There are some textual scholars who believe that the Barabbas scene has been corrupted by pro-Roman scribes in order to shift the blame for Jesus’ execution to the Jews. Several early manuscripts actually depict the Jewish crowd calling for the release of “Jesus Bar-abbas,” implying that they were really call for the release of Christ and that the bandit Barabbas was a later invention.

Heaven knows that the Roman faction in the early Church certainly did its fair share of Biblical revision in support of their partisan political goals, so this theory may well be true. After all, they opposed the Desposyni, blood relatives of Jesus, in order to shift the central church (and the flow of church money) from Jerusalem to Rome.

If Jerome of Stridonium can imagine two Marys and perpetual virginity for Jesus’ mother in order to separate Jesus from his siblings, why not invent two Jesus Barabbases in order to separate Jesus from his ethnicity?

If this is, in fact, true then the story of Barabbas takes on an ironic tone. In order to diminish the Unitarian Jews who supported Jesus as the Son of God the Father, Trinitarian revisionists transformed him into a bandit, robbed him of his name, and depicted his Jewish followers as misguided as they would later do to the so-called “Arians.”

Perhaps even, in support of their authoritarian politics, they purposefully counterposed a rebellious Barabbas against the passive Jesus in order to stigmatize rebellion. Food for thought.