New Eyes Faith

Is the Trinity Biblical?

2019-02-06T22:22:00.001-05:00

Thinking Christians have pondered and debated over serious questions regarding
the nature of God and His son since the early first century. Is the Father alone God? Or is Jesus also God? Are Jesus and the Father one in essence, and therefore one God but two persons? And if Jesus is God, can he also be man? And how does the Holy Spirit fit into this question about Deity and Godhood?

The doctrine of the Trinity purports to answer these questions, along with the doctrine of the two natures of Christ. Orthodox Christianity points to the Council of Nicea in 325 AD as the defining moment for the Trinity. But in reality the Nicene Creed only recognized the Father and the Son as being of the same essence. It actually affirmed only the Deity of Christ, not the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was given only passing recognition at the end of the creed with the sentence "And we believe in the Holy Spirit."

THE COUNCILS and CREEDS

The fact is, there were many such Church Councils after Nicea, but it was not until the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD, 56 years later, that the Holy Spirit was recognized as full Deity in the Creed of Constantinople. "The Council of Constantinople eliminated the anathemas from the Nicene Creed and added a statement affirming the deity of the Holy Spirit as well as the one holy catholic church, the forgiveness of sins, and the resurrection of the dead." -- Frank M. Hasel, “Creeds and Confessions,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016)

Further, it was in the Athanasian Creed of 451 AD that the Church finally agreed, in writing, on the dual nature of Christ as both fully God and fully man. Church Creeds were formulated to provide a consistent confession for all believers to agree on and follow. But sadly, they have always had the opposite effect, being a point of division and contention due to disagreements over language. And today, centuries later, we still debate and argue over the same issues.

THE DEBATES

Have you listened to the debate between Dr. Dale Tuggy and Dr. Michael Brown, held on January 11th, 2019? If not, you can see and hear the full debate HERE.
As debates go, I thought this one was very good, and I believe Dr. Tuggy to be the winner. Although he admittedly was unable to address every Scripture Dr. Brown referenced that night, he has made a great effort to follow up. You can hear his follow up arguments to the debate on his podcast called "Trinities", HERE. Also, some excellent points in refutation of Dr. Brown's Trinitarian arguments are made in three parts by Sean Finnegan and Jerry Wierwille on Sean's podcast called "Restitutio", HERE.

I have recently been made aware of yet another debate which took place on 7/2/18. This one between a life long Unitarian and a former Unitarian turned Trinitarian. Debates can be lengthy, and a little boring (depending on the presenters), but if you like debates I think you'll enjoy this one.

The video below is the full debate without moderator questions or comments, (debaters only) and lasts approximately 1 1/2 hrs. If you don't care about watching the video, you can hear an audio only version at Dr. Tuggy's Trinities YouTube Channel HERE. The audio version has been edited even further (less than 1 hour).

In the end, every serious minded Christian must make up his/her own mind about this vital issue, and the final authority can only be what is written in the Bible, and not any man made creed. It's what the Bible actually says, not what we want it to say, or what any tradition dictates, that matters. Do you agree?

Enjoy! And let me know what you think.

I'd love to hear from you! To share you thoughts about this topic, please post a comment. All comments - both pro and con - are welcome, but please be respectful. Also, please check one of the reaction boxes below.

br>

Was Jesus With God Before the World Existed?

2019-01-26T12:34:00.000-05:00

"And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.” -- John 17:5 (ESV)

The above Scripture is often used as absolute proof that Jesus preexisted his earthly life as deity in heaven. The doctrine of the preexistence of Christ is fundamental to the all important doctrine of the Trinity held by most Christian denominations. In this verse it appears that Jesus is asking to be reinstated to his former glory which he had with the Father in heaven.

But this raises some serious questions. In the Trinity model, who is praying here? Is it the divine nature or the human nature? The man Jesus did not preexist so, it must be the divine Son of God. But why would God the Son, a supposed equal, pray to God the Father for the restoration of his glory? Hmm...

Clear Evidence

In a recent debate between Biblical Unitarian, Dr. Dale Tuggy, and Trinitarian, Dr. Michael Brown, the latter pointed to this verse as “clear evidence” of Jesus preexistence. (You can listen to that debate here: “Is the God of the Bible the Father Alone?”). The fact is, prior to 2009, I would have heartily agreed with Dr. Brown! Admittedly, before that time I never seriously questioned the logic of Christ’s preexistence, or the doctrine of the Trinity. Like most, I just accepted it as true based on what I was told, and on the Scriptures they pointed to for its support.

This verse seems pretty clear-cut on its face, especially when paired with John 1:1, which says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Combine these with various other New Testament verses such as John 8:58 and Col 1:15-16, and it’s a slam dunk, right? Armed with these bible verses, how could anyone reasonably argue against the preexistence of Christ?

One thing I discovered after giving this matter serious thought over the past several years is there is a glaring omission of context when John 17:5 is cited to prove preexistence and deity. For example: John 17:3 reads:

"And this is eternal life, that they know you (Father), the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” (emphasis mine)

This is part of Jesus’ prayer to “the Father”. It is The Father that Jesus himself calls “the only true God”. What this language conveys, both in Greek and English, is clear. There is only one who is God in the truest sense. It seems to me that this also is a “clear evidence” text. It is clear that if the Father is “the ONLY true God”, then Jesus Christ cannot also be true God.

What I have found rather consistently among those who turn to John 17:5, to prove the preexistence and deity of Christ, is a failure to address John 17:3. Both of these “clear evidence” texts cannot be true at the same time. If the Father alone is God, then Jesus cannot have existed as an equal God with Him. This is not my opinion, it is self-evident from the text. What then does Jesus mean by “... glorify me with the glory I had with you before the world began.” Only a solution that does NOT contradict verse 3 can be sufficient!

Let me be clear that there are no textual problems with John 17:5. It says what is says. “Father glorify me in your own presence”; para seautōi. "Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament" translates this as “by the side of Thyself”. Further, “I had” means exactly that; IE. actually possessed. This is a clear reference to the ascension and exaltation of Christ. Jesus is asking for glory alongside the Father, as though it was something he previously possessed.

Harmonizing John 17:5 with John 17:3

So how can we reconcile this against John 17:3? What we have here is one verse that contradicts the deity of Christ (v3) and another that asserts the preexistence of Christ. But preexistence does not prove, or even suggest deity. In other words, one can soundly believe that Jesus preexisted (and John 17:5 demands it), and yet reject the deity of Christ, and therefore the Trinity, based on verse 3 (along with many others).

Preexistence does not require a literal interpretation. For example: many couples plan their families in advance. They determine they will have "x" number of children, and no more. Further, they may plan an inheritance for their children, such as a place in the family business, a college education, etc. In some cultures they even pre-plan marriages well in advance. It could then be said that the children preexisted their literal, physical existence, in the mind of their parents.

Did Jesus exist in the mind of God before the world began? Yes, most certainly! This, I assert, is what John means by “the Word” in John 1:1. In the beginning God had a plan to reconcile the world to Himself. This plan required a man through whom He would reveal Himself, accomplish reconciliation, and then bestow great glory and honor as the king of His kingdom. Thus, the Word (the plan) became flesh in the person of Jesus, God's Christ. Note also, the following Scriptures:

"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— 23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men." -- Acts 2:22-23;

"He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you 21 who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God." -- 1 Pet 1:20-21

Jesus was clearly in God's foreknowledge, in His plan, prior to creation.

Now you can see what Jesus means when he says “glorify me with the glory I had with you before the world began”. At the time of this narrative in John’s gospel, Jesus earthly ministry was coming to a close. He said: “I glorified You on earth, having accomplished the work you gave me to do.” (John 17:4) He was soon to be killed on a cross and become the lamb that takes away the sins of the world. In fact, some scholars have suggested that “glory” in John’s gospel is a reference, not just to exaltation, but to Jesus suffering and death.

Death and Resurrection/Subsequent Exaltation

There can be no doubt that all of these events were in God’s plan for Jesus. He was simply praying that The Father’s plan would now be realized… “glorify me with the glory I had with you (you planned for me) before the world existed”. The glory that Jesus “had” with the Father was the glory that existed for him in God’s plan, from the beginning; the glory of suffering and death and subsequent resurrection and exaltation to the Father's own right hand!

This is not difficult to comprehend. To speak of something as having already happened before it actually takes place is not uncommon in the bible. It’s a way of speaking about the absolute certainty that God’s plan and promises will come to pass.

For example:

Paul speaks of us Christians as already having been “raised with Christ” even though we won’t literally be raised until he appears (Col 3:1).
Paul also says He (God) “chose us in him before the foundation of the world”, although we weren’t literally there to be chosen (Eph 1:4).
In 2 Timothy 1:9 Paul writes that we received our salvation and holy calling by God’s grace in Christ “before the ages began” even though we did not yet exist.
Also, see Jer 1:5. Did Jeremiah literally exist in the presence of God before creation? Of course not.

Conclusion

Did Jesus exist with the Father and have glory with Him before the world began? And did God know and love Jesus before the foundation of the world? (John 17:24) Yes! But this proves neither literal preexistence, nor eternal deity.

Jesus said there is only one true God, and He is The Father! (John 17:3) John 17:5 MUST be understood and interpreted in that light. Since John 17:3 disallows for the deity of Christ, as an equal with the Father, an "ideal" or "figurative" understanding of preexistence is reasonable.

The only alternative to this is a literal preexistence as taught by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The JW’s hold to a doctrine of preexistence similar to that of the ancient theologian Arius, who got in trouble with his bishop Athanasius, for saying “there was a time when Jesus was not” - meaning, Jesus was created at some point in time before the world was created, but he was not eternal deity. This teaching was based on Col 1:15 where Paul describes Jesus as “the firstborn of all creation.”

But these interpretations are simply not compatible with the whole context of Scripture. Jesus was a man anointed by God to bring about His eternal plan of salvation for men. His own reward was exaltation with glory and honor, and a "name above every name... to the glory of God the Father" (Phil 2:11).

If you have been reading through this article and hold the traditional orthodox view of Jesus, it’s likely I haven’t changed your mind. But I pray that I have given you a strong argument to seriously consider, and that you will now search this out for yourself. There is no substitute for personal research and discovery of truth. (Jn 8:32)

_________________________________________________

For further study:

Dr. Dustin Smith, "An Introduction to Preexistence Within the Bible"

(click HERE or the image below)

_________________________________________________

To share you thoughts about this topic, please post a comment. I'd love to hear from you! All comments - pro and con - are welcome, but if you disagree please be respectful... I will not authorize mean-spirited comments. Also, please check one of the reaction boxes below.

Did Jesus Perform Miracles Because He was God?

2019-01-19T00:39:00.002-05:00

One of the most common errors among many Christians today is the belief that Jesus performed miracles in the New Testament because he was God. Another error like it is that he was sinless and overcame temptation because he was God. The Bible simply doesn't support either of these assumptions.

Recently I updated the Media Page on this blog to include the first in a series of video messages on the Kingdom of God, by Dr. Gordon Fee. As of the date of this post, I only have one video uploaded, but the others will follow soon.

If you are not familiar with Dr. Fee, he is an American-Canadian Christian theologian and ordained minister with the Assemblies of God. He currently serves as Professor Emeritus of New Testament Studies at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

The following short video is an excerpt from one of Dr. Fee's lectures back in the 70's or 80's in which he addresses the question, "Did Jesus perform miracles because he was God?".

To my knowledge, since Dr Fee is still affiliated with the Assemblies of God, I assume he is Trinitarian with respect to his doctrine of God, although he does have some disagreement with article 7 of the Assemblies of God Statement of Fundamental Truths regarding the traditional understanding of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

That said, Dr. Fee's teaching on the Kingdom of God, as well as the power that drove Jesus miracles, are right on point. Christian pastors and church goers would do well to take a lesson from Dr. Fee, and the Bible on these two important topics. Consider the following few verses...

"There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit. And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord. And his delight shall be in the fear of the Lord." -- Isaiah 11:1-3

"And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. 21 And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing." -- Luke 4:17-21

"For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for he (God) gives the Spirit without measure." -- John 3:34

"Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." -- Acts 2:33

"...how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him." -- Acts 2:38

"The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus..." -- Acts 3:13

"Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, 'The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel'." -- Mark 1:14-15

"I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns as well; for I was sent for this purpose." -- Luke 4:43 (ESV - emphasis mine)

Jesus was empowered by the Spirit of God to announce the coming Kingdom of God, his primary focus in ministry. And his miracles were proof, not of his Deity, but that he was the long awaited Messiah of Israel! I only wish we would hear more of this kind of preaching in our churches, and be more careful to use the language of the Bible when we speak of Jesus and the gospel!

I hope you enjoyed the video. And I encourage you to visit my Media Page for Dr. Fee's excellent video presentations on The Kingdom of God.

I'd love to hear from you! To share you thoughts about this topic, please post a comment. All comments - both pro and con - are welcome, but please be respectful. Also, please check one of the reaction boxes below.

Is the God of the Bible the Father Alone?

2019-01-17T16:45:00.003-05:00

On Friday evening, 1/11/2019, there was a debate on the subject "Is the God of the bible the Father alone? This debate featured Dr. Dale Tuggy (Unitarian) and Dr. Michael Brown (Trinitarian). It's quite lengthy (as are most debates) but well worth your time. If you haven't seen it yet, be sure to set some time aside to listen. I found it quite interesting, entertaining, and enlightening.

I love one of the comments made after Dr Browns 20 minute introductory remarks. It reads:

"19 minutes of 'this is how God is'... followed by 'let's stop trying to understand God'."

In my opinion, Dr. Tuggy won this debate, but I'm probably biased since I happen to agree with his position. Anyway, listen for yourself and see what you think.

If you are interested, you can also listen to segments of the debate with commentary at https://www.youtube.com/restorationfellowship

Please check one of the reaction boxes below.
br>I'd love to hear from you! To share you thoughts about this topic, please post a comment. All comments are welcome so long as they are respectful.

Theology Matters

2017-07-13T01:30:00.001-04:00

Theology... doctrine... These words elicit a less than positive response in many people, am I right?

Some years back I was considering a Sunday morning Bible class on "covenants". I asked several people what they thought about this kind of class and the responses were dismal to say the least - very discouraging to me.

What most people seem to want is what they refer to as "practical" teaching, IE. how to live out your faith in daily life. Of course, I couldn't agree more that we need this kind of teaching. However, can we really expect to live out our faith accurately, if our theology and doctrine are wrong? I don’t think so!

The apostle Paul wrote most of the books of the New Testament, and in them he quotes or alludes often to the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). Why? Because in spite of any revelations he received about Jesus and his gospel of the kingdom, the Hebrew Scriptures formed the basis of his theology, because they formed the basis of Jesus' theology!

The fact is, everything Paul writes to the various churches is doctrinal in nature! Whether it's about Jesus as Messiah, Yahweh as the One God and Father, the gospel message itself, or how we should live in light of these truths. It’s all about good theology and sound doctrine (teaching).

See the following Scriptures: Rom 16:17, 25; 1Cor 15:1-11; 2 Cor 11:3-4; Gal 1:6-11; Eph 4:14; Phil 1:27; 3:2-3; 2 Tim 1:8-10; 2 Tim 3:16; 1 Tim 1:3, 10; 4:3, 6; 6:3; Tit 2:7

The following video speaks to the importance of theology.

Amen!! I think the producers of this video did a wonderful job showing the importance of good theology, thorough research, and right teaching.

If the Scriptures are inspired by God and are profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16), then shouldn’t we be careful to get it right? (2 Tim 2:15) Unfortunately, much of today’s theology and teaching is based on 1000's of years of tradition which has been heavily influenced by Greek philosophy.

This unbiblical, pagan way of thinking, infiltrated the Church shortly after the demise of the apostles and led to doctrines that do not sound like Jesus or Paul. Not that the theologians of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, and beyond, were deliberately trying to distort the truth, but that is exactly what happened, little by little over many years.

Doctrines such as the trinity, and the soul leaving the body at death for an eternal destination in heaven or hell, are all based on pagan teachings (Platonism), not Hebrew Scripture. The bishops and church leaders after the time of the apostles may have been sincere in their desire to understand Scripture, but they were terribly mistaken! This information about church history can be obtained easily by doing a search online, or reading any classic history.

But the Bible itself, our final authority as Christians, is very clear on the subject of who God is and who Jesus is. But with so many years of teaching the Trinity, it is nearly impossible for people to read the Bible for what it actually says. Instead, we tend to read into it what we have been told, what we already think to be true.

Ask God to give you "new eyes" in your Bible reading and study! The following is a rather lengthy list of Bible verses. But please take the time to read them with an open heart and mind and let the truth set you free!

Isaiah 45:5 – "I am the LORD (YHWH) and there is no other, there is no God besides me."

Exodus 3:15 – "Thus shall you say to the Israelites: The LORD (YHWH), the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, has sent me to you."

Acts 3:13 – "The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our ancestors, has glorified his servant Jesus."

Acts 10:38 – "How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power. He went about doing good and healing all oppressed by the devil, for God was with him."

Isaiah 61:1 – "The spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the LORD (YHWH) has anointed me."

Luke 4:18-21 – "He (Jesus) unrolled the scroll and found the passage where it was written: ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me,’…He (Jesus) said to them, ‘Today this Scripture passage is fulfilled in your hearing."

1 Cor. 8:6 – "Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom all things are and for whom we exist, and one Lord Jesus Christ."

1 Cor. 1:3 – "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."

2 Cor. 1:2 – "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."

Philippians 1:2 – "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."

1 Thessalonians 1:1 – "To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."

1 Thessalonians 3:13 – "To be blameless in holiness before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus."

2 Thessalonians 1:2 – "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."

2 Thessalonians 2:16 – "May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who has loved us."

Philippians 4:20 – To our God and Father, glory for ever and ever. Amen."

Colossians 1:2 – "Peace from God our Father."

Ephesians 1:3 - “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…”

Ephesians 4:6 – "One God and Father of all."James1:1 – "James, a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ."

1 Timothy 1:2 – "Peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord."

2 Timothy 1:2 – "Peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord."

Titus 1:4 – "Peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our savior."

Philemon vv. 3 – "Peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."

Galatians 1:3 "Peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."

1 Peter 1:3 – "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

2 Cor. 1:3 – "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

2 Cor. 11:31 – "The God and Father of the Lord Jesus knows, he who is blessed forever, that I do not lie."

Revelation 1:6 – "Who has made us into a kingdom, priests for his God and Father."

Ephesians 1:17 – "That the God of our Lord, the Father of glory."

Micah 5:4 – "He shall stand firm and shepherd his flock by the strength of the LORD (YHWH), in the majestic name of the LORD, HIS GOD."

John 20:17 - "I am going to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God."

Matthew 27:46 - "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

Revelation 3:12 - "Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God."

Revelation 3:2 - "For I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God."

Hebrews 13:20 – "May the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great shepherd of the sheep by the blood of the eternal covenant."

Acts 5:30 – "The God of our ancestors raised Jesus."

Acts 2:22 – "Jesus the Nazorean was a MAN commended to you by God with mighty deeds, wonders, and signs, which God worked through him in your midst."

Acts 10:40 – This MAN God raised on the third day."

Acts 17:31 – "God has overlooked the times of ignorance, but now He demands that all people everywhere repent because He has established a day on which He will judge the world with justice through a MAN He has appointed, and He has provided confirmation for all by raising him from the dead."

1 Timothy 2:5 – "For there is one God and one mediator also between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus."

1 Corinthians 15: 21 –"For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man"

Acts 10:38 – "How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the holy Spirit and power."

Deuteronomy 18:18 – "And the LORD (YHWH) said to me, I will raise up for you a prophet like you FROM AMONG YOUR OWN KINSMEN, and will put my words into his mouth; he shall tell them all that I command him."

Acts 3:20-22 – "that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago. Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you."

Isaiah 53:3 – "He was spurned and avoided by men, a MAN of suffering."

Rev. 1:1 – "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him."

Mark 13:32 – "But of that hour, no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, NOR THE SON, but only the Father."

John 17:3 – "Now this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ."

Mark 10:18 – "Jesus answered him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone."

CONCLUSION

The above verses are not difficult, nor are they disputed by scholars for grammar or possible transmission errors. But ask someone who has been indoctrinated in the Trinity (the majority of Christianity) to explain one of these simple verses and see what happens. They will jump through hoops and do backflips to make them mean what they want them to mean; IE. that Jesus is both God and man.

Dear friends, theology matters, truth matters, sound doctrine matters. Don’t live the rest of your life believing a lie, no matter how good it may sound to you, or how many others accept it as true.

Jesus was born of a virgin, empowered by the Holy Spirit, proclaimed the coming kingdom of God, was tempted yet without sin, and was killed by evil men, then buried in a cave for three days. But God raised him out from the dead as “the firstfruits of them that sleep”, exalted him into heaven where he now sits at God’s right hand, and he will return to earth to inaugurate God’s kingdom at a time only God knows. When he returns the dead in Christ will rise first, then we who are alive and remain will be caught up to meet him in the air, and we will reign with him over the earth. This is the gospel in a nutshell.

"But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God" - Jn 1:12

"These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life." - 1Jn 5:13

"Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures." - James 1:18

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." - 1Pet 1:3-5

"for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith." - Gal 3:26

Do you believe this?

"The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” -- Rom 10:8-11

Please check one of the reaction boxes below.
To share you thoughts, please post a comment.

I Was Blind ... but Now I See!

2016-08-16T23:47:00.000-04:00

"Amazing grace how sweet the sound

That saved someone like me

I once was lost but now I’m found

Was blind but now I see."

You recognize this great old hymn, right? And to me, it’s still as relevant now as it was 40 years ago!

Anyone who has experienced the life-changing power of Jesus Christ through the gospel understands and relates to the message in this song. But many are spiritually blind. What makes deception so devilish is that those being deceived are not aware they are being deceived! Can it be that the the masses of people on our planet live in deception and walk in darkness? Deceived by religions, by governments, by traditions, by their own sin?

I don’t presume to have all the answers, but I know this - I was deceived! As a young man I thought Christianity was a fantasy. I preferred to think that aliens were responsible for life on this planet or that, perhaps it was created out of nothing as the result of a “big bang”. I thought that smoking marijuana would enhance my senses and enlarge my brain (wow, I still can’t believe that one! ...and I thought Christianity was a fantasy?). I preferred to believe in anything other than the truth, that a good God created us to know and love Him, and to offer us a dynamic and fulfilling life of faith in relationship with Him.

But for me, it really all came down to one thing - accountability! I just didn’t want to be accountable to God for my life and actions because I thought it would prevent me from enjoying everything life had to offer. I was deceived! When I realized that life wasn’t as great as I thought it would be, or should be, given that I could do anything I wanted without consequences (or so I thought), I began to think seriously about my lifestyle - my choices.

Not long after, through the testimony of a good friend, I bowed my heart before God, asking for forgiveness. And in that very moment something happened that cannot be adequately told - it's better experienced. It was like a film had been removed from my eyes, and suddenly I could see clearly. And not only that, but I felt that several pounds of weight had been removed from my shoulders! I felt peace and joy in my heart, and even the air I breathed seemed fresher. I'm not exaggerating!

This is the shortened story of my conversion experience and I will never forget that moment. It is forever etched in my psyche, and I have never been the same since that day in February of 1974. Praise God! But these days, that great old song has taken on a second meaning for me. Little did I know back then that one could come to know the one who IS truth - Jesus - and still be deceived. In fact, for many years I embraced teachings I thought were truth - right out of the Bible. However, in the past few years, as I have sought God for answers and clarification on certain issues, I have discovered that much of what I was taught as a protestant, evangelical, pentecostal Christian, was simply more fiction than fact!

Without question, the biggest error I have encountered as a Christian is the doctrine of the Trinity! Admittedly, it’s a teaching I could never understand, nor can anyone else if they are honest. But that didn’t stop me from believing it, and embracing it. Isn’t that amazing? It is NOT explicitly proclaimed anywhere in the pages of the Bible, yet it is embraced by millions as the central truth of Christianity. Isn’t that the very definition of deception? Thousands of well-meaning, intelligent men and women have put forth their impassioned philosophical debates along with arguments from biblical narrative and biblical grammar, all in an attempt to support an idea that cannot be proved. They make up charts and graphs, reference anecdotal and fictional writings, as well as illustrations from science and nature. And they do this with great enthusiasm in an attempt to make a contradiction, somehow, believable. But in the real world, three is not one and one is not three!

Every argument attempting to explain the Trinity can only end up one way - “you just have to take it by faith.” Well... I don’t have to take it… and neither do you! God never asks us to believe a logical contradiction. There are no examples of this anywhere in Scripture. Oh yes, to be sure, there are many things in the Bible we cannot explain; ie. how did God lengthen a day for Joshua, how was Philip translated from one location to another in an instant of time, how did God raise Jesus from the dead, and oh by the way, what is God's origin anyway - who created Him? (to name just a few) But the fact is, all these things are explicitly stated in the Bible as having actually happened, and so, even though we can’t explain them we DO take them by faith.

But this is NOT so with the Trinity! None of the fine arguments theologians use to make their case for the Trinity is ever made by any person in the Old or New Testament, ever! They didn’t have to defend a Triune God because that concept never entered their minds!! So why do we persist in this deception? Why is it so important?

...It’s religion.

Well, I could go on and on, but that’s not my purpose here. I simply want to make one point. Living the christian life does not require some higher knowledge that was not evident, or that was hidden at the time of conversion. I did not confess the Trinity in order to “get saved”, nor did you. I did, however, confess Jesus as lord, as the one who died as the sacrifice for my sins. I recognized that Jesus was the Son of God, sent so that I would not perish, but have everlasting life! I didn’t understand then the sense of being “sent”, I just believed that Jesus death somehow paid for my sin, and I was forgiven. There is no reason to twist and distort Scripture in a way that makes Jesus something he never claimed himself to be! He is the Son of God, not God the Son!

Today, I sing “amazing grace” with a double meaning because I have not only been rescued from sin, but also rescued from an error that had kept my mind in the dark - a confusion in understanding God and Jesus, and how to pray. It was like being a victim of brainwashing; consistently told to see black when you are actually looking at white! Ah, but now I truly see! God alone is God and Jesus is the Son of God, our lord, born of a virgin, sent (commissioned) to proclaim the gospel about the kingdom of God and freely give his life to redeem us from the power of sin, which is death.

This view, I’m convinced, is what the Bible clearly declares as being taught to the first disciples by Jesus himself. And it is that message that was proclaimed by the same to the 1st century church! The conflation of Father, Son, and Spirit crept into the church after the death of the apostles through vain philosophies, as Paul himself consistently warned.

I urge you, my brothers and sisters in Christ, to consider what I say here. Seriously question why you believe what you believe and ask Father God to help you see Scripture with “new eyes”. Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, and God will guide you and teach you by His Spirit, if you are willing to listen. Listen, and be amazed!.

Please feel free to share your thoughts by posting a comment.

Is God One or Three?

2015-09-28T14:14:00.003-04:00

“You believe that God is one; well and good. Even the demons believe that

—and tremble with fear.” The NET Bible (Jas 2:19).

God is One! So reads the NASB, NET, ASV, BBE, Darby, ESV, HCSB, Weymouth, YLT, CBE, AMP, RSV, NRSV, Lexham, and NAB. Other translations read "there is one God" or something similar. The underlying Greek clearly allows for both, but context is always king. The word in Greek is eis, which is a cardinal number meaning one (1)! While there are certain texts which translate eis as alone, only, or even first, the word simply means one! It can also be translated by the word "single" or the preposition "a" which is used before nouns and noun phrases that denote a single but unspecified person or thing, ie. a region; a person. That it has the meaning of one singular person, or being, in the text above, is in sync with the sh’ma as recorded at Deut 6:4, "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! (NASB). There, the Hebrew word is echad, also a cardinal number. Like eis, it may be translated in a variety of ways depending on context, but the primary meaning is ONE!

Although it can be understood in the sense that there is only one God, even in Deut 6:4, it is equally true that, that one God has a name... Yahweh! This fact precludes any thought that He is plural in nature, or that “one” means anything other than "one person"! Also, He is called not only by His Name, but also by the term elohim (God) using singular personal pronouns thousands of times in the Hebrew Scriptures. This should be of great significance to anyone who understands the importance of words as a means of communication.

I am by no means a master of the English language, but I understand this: I must choose the correct words to convey my meaning. If I use the pronouns he, she, it, him, his, my, mine, etc; I expect to be understood as referring to a single person, place, or thing. These pronouns as used in the the Biblical texts all support the idea of one person or one thing, it's not complicated! If the Scriptures were written for our benefit, for our instruction (2Tim 3:16), and they are truly inspired by God, it would be inappropriate and unseemly to use words that cause confusion. Certainly, “God is not a God of confusion, but of peace.” (1 Cor 14:33)

Further, the sh’ma was endorsed by Jesus himself in Mark 12:29, where he is asked by a scribe of the law "which is the greatest of all commandments?". Jesus then quotes Deut 6:4, and notice how it reads in the NASB:

“Jesus answered, "The foremost is, 'HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD ;” --Mark 12:29 (NASB)

He (God Almighty) is one Lord, not two or three!

The whole of the bible proclaims the central truth, that God is One! Jews and Christians both claim to be monotheists, but the majority of christianity has adopted and long held the notion that monotheism can be supported by the view that God is three persons in One being. Or “three who’s in one what” as one modern day theologian has stated. This idea is really a stretch from what the Bible actually teaches. There can be no distinction between a person and a being. It breaks every rule of logic and of language!

The apostle James writes his letter to "the 12 tribes in the dispersion" (James 1:1), very similar to Peter who writes to "elect exiles of the dispersion" (1Pet 1:1), both referring to Jewish people; yet these letters are clearly written to christian believers. My argument is that ALL christians in the early church, Jew and Gentile alike, were taught from the Hebrew Scriptures which adamantly demanded that God is One Person.

Acts 15 records the first church council, long before Nicea, in which the church leaders led by Peter and James, excused the gentile believers from being circumcised and, presumably, from all the "traditions of the fathers". But this very exclusion strongly suggests that the gentile church was instructed in Torah (the Law of Moses), as well as the Writings and the Prophets. While certain “traditions” may not have been incumbent on gentile christians, the all important creed of the Jews from Deut 6:4 remained central in the teaching of the Jewish christians, and certainly would not have been bypassed in the instruction of gentile believers!

But James and Peter are not the only New Testament writers to attest to the unity of God as one single Person. In Rom 3:30 Paul speaks about God being the God of both Jew and Greek and says, “Since God is one, he will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith." Again, a strong reference to the sh’ma of Deut 6:4. Here, it should perhaps be understood that Paul means it primarily in the sense that "God alone" is God, but this does not negate the reality that He is One Person. At 1Cor 8:5-6 Paul writes:

“For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. (NASB - emphasis mine)

Paul states that the one true God is "the Father"! This underscores what I've been saying, that God is one single person!

In Matt 19:17 Jesus himself is recorded as saying "...there is only one who is good". Who is that one? Can there be any doubt that Jesus' reference was to God the Father? This is the fundamental belief of every Jew. There is no God but one, and He is the One singular Person,Yahweh, the Father (the creator of all). Although we can’t rely on the veracity of everything the pharisee’s are reported to have said, there can be little doubt about their correctness on this point! The pharisee’s knew well that

"...We have only one Father, God himself." - John 8:41 (NET)

Also, take note of Paul’s words in Eph 4:4-6:

"There is one body and one Spirit, just as you too were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." (NET - emphasis mine)

In this verse, Paul is not ambiguous about who the "one God" is; He is the Father. But who is the one Lord? Well, this should be apparent also, he is Jesus! And if words mean anything, this one fact should also be apparent: one body, one Spirit, one hope, one faith, and one baptism are not the same thing! If that is true, then neither are one lord and one God the same person. Further, if there is one God and He is the Father, then the one lord is not the Father, nor can he be God. They are not the same!

The Greek language has only one word for “lord”. It is kurios. (see comment on this for correction) Therefore, its referent must be understood from context. This fact has led to some confusion. At times, the New Testament writers refer to God as lord, and other times the term is a reference to Christ Jesus as lord. The Lord God has always been THE Lord of all, the Lord God Almighty, but Jesus was given the title of Lord and Christ by God!

“For David did not ascend into heaven, but he himself says,

‘The Lord said to my lord,

“Sit at my right hand

until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.” ’

Therefore let all the house of Israel know beyond a doubt that God has made this Jesus whom you crucified both Lord and Christ.” -- emphasis mine, The NET Bible (Acts 2:29–36)

The reference in verse 34 is from Psalm 110:1 where two distinct Hebrew words are translated as lord. The first (Lord) is from the Hebrew adonai (pronounced adonay” which is always used for God Almighty, the Lord. The second lord is a variation, adoni (pronounced adonee) found 195 times in the Old Testament, and always referring to a human master (lord). This distinction is not clear in Strong’s Concordance or the Greek language, but the NASB correctly makes the distinction using capital “L” for the first Lord, and small “l” for the second. It is the Lord God Yahweh who says to his Messiah (David’s lord), the human lord, “sit at my right hand”!

“As a result God exalted him

and gave him the name

that is above every name,

so that at the name of Jesus

every knee will bow

—in heaven and on earth and under the earth—

and every tongue confess

that Jesus Christ is Lord (should be small “l”)

to the glory of God the Father. -- emphasis mine, The NET Bible (Php 2:9–11)

It is the Lord God who exalts Jesus (the lord Messiah), and this exaltation is meant to bring glory to God the Father! How far the christian church has fallen from its Judaic roots and understanding of who God and Jesus are as proclaimed in God’s holy book, the Bible.

Jesus said he came not to destroy the Torah but to fulfill it! In other words, he came to correctly interpret and act it out. Look again at the primary text:

“You believe that God is one; well and good. Even the demons believe that

—and tremble with fear.” The NET Bible (Jas 2:19).

James point here is that if you profess this fundamental teaching that God is One, as all orthodox Jews did and continue to do, as Jesus did, and as all christians -Jew and gentile alike - are called upon to do, then you are doing what is good and right! Monotheism has always been and continues to be the foundation of Hebrew theology, and to believe correctly about God - that He is one Divine Person and there is no other besides Him is the right way, the orthodox way, of believing. And notice that he says, even demons have this understanding and belief about God - they know it to be true - yet they tremble, presumably out of fear, because they know what their end will be. Correct doctrine by itself is of no value without faith, and a proper response to that doctrine. And yet, who can deny that good doctrine is vital to the outworking of our faith?

I hope this short article will spark some deeper interest in you to research the matter for yourself. For me, it has been over six years since I came to this new understanding (which is really the old), and each day since, I never cease to be amazed at how clear the Bible really is on this subject. Yet, most christians have a blind spot on the issue of the trinity, as I did for many years. My prayer is that many more will begin to read their bibles with “new eyes”. I will end this writing with the words of Paul in Eph 1:17-23:

“...that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him. I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.” (NASB)

Please check one of the reaction boxes below. Share you thoughts on this article by posting a comment.

Truth Or Tradition?

2015-06-30T20:29:00.002-04:00

Read Acts 2:14-26

The first sermon preached by the christian church was delivered by Peter on the Day of Pentecost. When the gift of holy spirit was poured out on the faithful 120 in the upper room, it was one of the great turning points in the history of the world! And being the very first sermon it should be of enormous significance to anyone who is seriously interested in knowing truth. The fact is, we cannot possibly hope to understand the church and its message unless we understand what these early christian brothers believed and taught.

When I was in Bible College back in the 80’s, I served as an intern for a church that hosted a sizeable group of refugees from Laos. Every Sunday for about 6 months I taught a class on Sunday mornings to these wonderful people who had escaped the tyranny of the Laotian regime, many of them losing loved ones on their journey to freedom. I’ll always cherish the memory of those brave souls who endured so much hardship and heartbreak to find freedom in our country. Some of them were genuinely converted, but many others were just blending in and attended the Sunday classes just to be part of the community.

I share this with you because in the relationships I established with them I often had the opportunity to inquire about their customs and beliefs. Invariably, I found that whether it was a practice involving a wedding ceremony, or a ritual performed as part of their animistic religious beliefs (which some still practiced even though they claimed to be christian), they were unable to explain WHY they did what they did, or why they believed what they said they believed! It all came down to “tradition” which was handed down from one generation to the next. Hmmm. Not so different from many good church going people today I think.

A while back I read an amusing story ( I cannot recall the exact source) about a young woman who had a certain way of preparing a roast for christmas dinner. Everyone loved her roast, and she was meticulous about preparing it in a particular manner. Her recipe required cutting the roast in two pieces and placing the halves in separate roasting pans. When asked why she did this she replied, “I don’t know, it’s how momma always did it.” Some years later she discovered the truth about why her momma alway cut the roast in two pieces. It seems that momma just didn’t have a big enough pot in which to put the whole roast!

These anecdotes illustrate how powerful and deceptive tradition can be!

IS GOD A TRINITY?

Now, let’s look at Peter’s sermon in the book of Acts and compare it to the prevailing teachings of today’s church. Notice first that after pointing to Scripture and indicating the source behind the strange behavior of those gathered, Peter begins to speak about Jesus and his relationship to God (v22). Did Peter stand up and declare Jesus to be God, the 2nd person of the trinity, or God the Son? No! Peter, inspired by holy spirit, apparently had no concept of the trinity! If so, certainly this would have been an excellent place for it to be made known. Instead, he refers to Jesus as “a man attested to you by God”, and through whom God did many signs and wonders, and a man who was crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men, and finally, who God raised up from the dead (vv22-24)!

Nothing Peter says here supports the tradition of a Triune God. In fact, none of it makes a bit of sense if Jesus were in fact God, or even if Peter supposed him to be God. But, if Jesus was, as Peter asserts, a man attested (affirmed, proved) by God”, then it makes perfect sense. And further, I see that it brings all of the Scriptures concerning Jesus and God into perfect clarity. The plain language used here makes it impossible to misunderstand Peter’s sense of who God and Jesus are in relation to each other. Plainly read, Peter understands that God is not a man, but He works through men (v22). Also, God could never be crucified or killed, however, He alone has the power to reverse death by resurrection (vv23-24)! Then notice in v36 that it is “God” who “made him (Jesus) both Lord and Christ.” Who is this God who “raised” Jesus from the dead, and “made” him both Lord and Christ”? Clearly, it is not Jesus who is God!

This is clarified even further when Peter quotes from Psalm 110:1, “The LORD said to my lord. ‘Sit at My right hand until I make your enemies your footstool’.” (vv34-35)! In the Hebrew Scriptures, the first LORD is adonai and the second is adoni clearly showing the difference between God and a human lord! This cannot be seen in our English translations, but in Hebrew, adonai is always used of God, where adoni is never used of God! The LORD (YaHWeH - God Almighty) said to my Lord (David’s lord, the Messiah - Jesus)! This is not God talking to God, but God speaking to the human Messiah!

But there’s something else… something not written here, but relevant to the portion of Scripture Peter quotes in verses 17-21. Peter’s explanation of what was happening was “this is what was uttered by the prophet Joel” (v16), then he quotes from Joel 2:28-32. What is not quoted is v27 which says “You shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the Lord your God and there is none else.” Did you catch that? I am the LORD your God and there is no other. The word “LORD” is Yahweh, the name of God the Father, while God is elohim (o theos in the Greek). It is literally “I am Yahweh your God and there is no other”!

So then, there is only one who is God, and he is Yahweh! It is this God, Yahweh, who declares, “I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh”(v17). The reference to “My Spirit”, everyone agrees, is a reference to the Holy Spirit. But is this Holy Spirit a person, or is it the gift of God’s own presence and power? The language of “pour out of My Spirit” seems to be an awkward and inappropriate way of speaking about another person. Perhaps it’s because neither Joel nor Peter understood the Spirit as being a 3rd person of a trinity! Perhaps it’s because the Spirit is the gift of God’s personal presence and power to the church - an impartation of God’s own character and nature to those who believe!.

DO WE CHRISTIANS GO TO HEAVEN WHEN WE DIE?

One last important observation in Peter’s sermon is how he speaks of David in relation to Jesus. After quoting from the prophet Joel he quotes from Psalm 16:8-11 (vv25-28). In this Psalm, Peter asserts that David is speaking prophetically about Messiah Jesus where God promises that he (Jesus) will not rot in the grave, but be resurrected back to life. Peter makes it clear, and is in fact “confident”, that David is not speaking about himself, and points to the fact that he both died and was buried and his tomb is “with us to this day” (v29). Peter declares that David did not rise from the dead, nor did he ascend into heaven. Understand this! David did not ascend into heaven! But wait, I thought all saints went to heaven when they die. Haven’t we been taught this from childhood? I know that some will claim that Old Testament saints went to paradise and Jesus emptied paradise during the three days his body was in the tomb. But this cannot be so because the supposed emptying of paradise would then have taken place prior to the Day of Pentecost. Therefore, David and all Old Testament saints would have already left paradise and been taken to heaven before the time Peter delivered his sermon. But Peter says, NO, David was NOT in heaven!

If not in heaven, then where? Just as Peter says, the dead are in their graves, or tombs. The bible uses the metaphor of “sleep” to describe believers who have died. This is a fitting description because just as those who experience undisturbed sleep have no awareness of time or anything else, so those who are dead - they are awaiting resurrection from the dead! So, David did not go to heaven but remained in the grave awaiting resurrection, which he will experience along with every believer, at the 2nd coming of Christ!

CONCLUSION

If Peter and the early church did not believe God to be “three in one” or that the believing dead go to heaven when they die, how did these doctrines come to have such a powerful hold over the church? The answer is tradition! Both the doctrines of the Trinity and of the dead going to heaven when they die, took root in the early centuries after the death of the apostles. Over time, they have been passed down from generation to generation with the result that very few question their veracity, or even suspect that they may be unbiblical. Yes, some can quote Scriptures that seem to support the traditional views, but in fact, these so called supporting texts are often taken out of context or misquoted entirely.

So, here in the very first sermon preached by the apostle Peter, after the holy spirit was poured out, we find a rather conspicuous contradiction between the early and modern church teaching! Here, Peter sets forth the unequivocal doctrine that there is one God and He is a single person; that there is one lord, Messiah, and he is the man Jesus; that the resting place for all at death is the grave, and that they will rise at the return of Messiah Jesus! I ask you dear reader, to examine this for yourself. I don’t claim to have special knowledge about the bible… far from it. I only point to what the bible clearly says without redefining words or pulling Scriptures from their context. Compare this to what is taught today and ask yourself why? Then, if you are sincere about knowing truth, regardless of the consequences, ask God our Father to help you read the Scriptures with “new eyes”. I know, for me, the bible makes much more sense than it did when I tried to make certain passages “fit” traditional teaching.

I believe the bible says what it means, and means what it says… do you?

If this article has been helpful in any way, please share it!

Is It Really So Difficult to Believe?

2014-11-03T14:56:00.000-05:00

During my morning devotions today I read through the first two chapters of Philippians. As is my practice, I highlighted several verses and phrases which stood out to me, and made notes. The first thing I read was, of course, Paul's greeting. Here is what he says in verse 2 of the greeting to the Philippian christians:

"Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." -- Philippians 1:2 (ESV)

Paul is clear about his understanding of God and Jesus. This is not unlike the greeting in all of his other New Testament epistles. He consistently refers to God and Jesus as separate; one who is God and the other who is Lord. An introduction like this would be inappropriate if he thought Jesus was God. If that was his understanding, He certainly doesn't convey the message very well!

Are we really to believe that Paul was purposefully vague about the Trinity so that later generations could have this truth revealed to them? No. Paul clearly understood WHO God is. To Paul, God is the Father, the only God, and Jesus is His Son, the Christ (Messiah), who is Lord, but not equal in any sense. (see 1Cor 8:5-6; 1Tim 2:5) The Bible simply does not support the teaching of a Triune God, or the dual nature of Christ as both human and yet fully God. All scholars agree that NO Bible Scripture explicitly teaches any facet of the Trinitarian doctrine, it is understood that it came to its apex after the 3rd century Council of Nicaea, presided over by the Roman Emperor Constantine. History clearly shows that the trinitarian view of God was not accepted by all believers, and even rejected several times in later years by other Councils.

Brothers and sisters, the doctrine of the Trinity is at odds with the plain words of the Bible. Why is this so difficult to see and understand? Having been there myself, for almost 40 years, I still have trouble wrapping my brain around a reasonable answer to this question. How did I miss it all those years? I think the truth may be that I didn't miss it at all, I simply chose to ignore it. And, I think also, that this may be true for most common people who claim to love and believe the Bible. We read passages like this and wonder; how does this reconcile with the teaching that Jesus is God? But then we satisfy ourselves with the standard arguments we've always heard; "it's a mystery", or "you have to take it by faith", then go on as though it didn't say what it says.

I thank God that I have been able to perceive reality, the reality that is clearly stated in Scripture but overlooked by so many, for so many years, about the true nature of God and his Son, Jesus. There is no mystery! The truth is apparent if we will read the Bible for what it says and not for what we've been taught. And I am encouraged greatly to know that there are many others out there, just like me, who also embrace this truth.

The thought that comes to me over and again, is what Jesus said when he spoke to the woman at the well in John 4. He said,

"...You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free!" -- John 8:32 (ESV)

I thank God that I was freed from the curse of sin through faith in Jesus! But the truth, as clearly revealed in Scripture, has enlightened me to the fact that, having become a christian, I also became bound to an error. Further, this error was responsible for a gripping fear that said: "If you don't confess that Jesus is God, you cannot be saved." But I was bound by an ideology that was never taught by Jesus or his early disciples! The Bible does not command us to confess Jesus as God, but as Lord, and that God raised him from the dead! (Rom 10:9-10) Thank God I am no longer bound by that unfounded fear.The truth that the Father alone is truly God has made the Scriptures come alive to me in a new way! I now readily see what the Bible says in certain passages, rather than skimming over verses that just didn't fit what I was taught to believe. The Bible finally makes sense when viewed from this perspective, and I find a cohesion in its message, throughout, that I couldn't find before.

In the passage I mentioned above, Jesus explained to the woman that "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth." (Jn 4:24) What does this mean? First, I contend that worshipping God in spirit essentially means to worship him from the heart, the inner most being, as opposed to a certain form, ritual, or ceremony (neither this mountain nor in Jerusalem - Jn 4:21). But I also think it means to worship Him in accordance with Jesus' own message. In addition to saying "God is spirit" he also said "...The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." (John 6:63) If His words are spirit, it is because they are God's words which He gave to Jesus. They are words of life which God, THE Spirit, gave to Jesus who faithfully spoke them from the heart!

Further, we must worship God in truth! The words "spirit and truth" are combined here to suggest not only that worship must come from the heart, but that it must also be in accordance with Jesus own revelation to us about who God the Father is. It is impossible to obey this command if we fail to understand Jesus own words concerning The Father.

"One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, “What commandment is the foremost of all?” Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD; 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.’ -- Mark 12:28-30 (NASB)

“But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." --Mk 13:32 (ESV)

"How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?" -- Jn 5:44 (ESV)

"And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." -- Jn 17:3 (ESV)

"Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ ” -- Jn 20:17 (ESV)

This is but a few of the Scriptures that clearly debunk, from Jesus own perspective, the teaching that God is a Trinity and Jesus is both God and man. When the evidence from the book of Acts and the rest of the New Testament epistles is taken into account, it is overwhelmingly contrary to the teaching of the Trinity!

Brothers and sisters, open your eyes and be free from the bondage of an erroneous doctrine that has ruled over the minds of the christian masses for far too long. May the God of Jesus reveal this truth to you.

The author desires your reaction and comments. Please check one of the reaction boxes below. To share you thoughts, post a comment.

Vain Deceit

2014-04-01T22:28:00.001-04:00

Colossians 2:8 (ESV)

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

It is assumed, and taught, by many Trinitarians that a group of theologians got together in the 3rd century and solved the riddle. That is, how could Jesus be a man and yet say and do things that only God could; and more importantly, how can we maintain monotheism and still believe in the Godhood of both Jesus and the Father? But does anyone else find it odd that the formulation of this doctrine came three centuries after the death and resurrection of Christ? And further, isn’t it rather suspect that we can find no Biblical illustrations attempting to explain the Trinity such as those which are used today?

Man’s Thoughts

Probably the most well-known illustration used to prove how there could be three distinct persons in One God-Essence is that of water, steam, and ice. The argument is that they are of one substance, but different forms. There are however, numerous problems with this comparison. First, the Trinity doctrine states explicitly that each person of the Trinity is not only distinct from each other, but each are God in themselves, yet forming only One God, not three separate gods; so there is unity in trinity. The water, ice, steam illustration falls short in that water must be altered to form ice or steam. Even though ice and steam retain properties of water, they cannot be called water - they have been altered. In addition, in the Trinity, each Person exists simultaneously, each being fully God, whereas, water can only be in one form at a time - either it is water, steam, or ice - not all three! This may be a good illustration for Modalism, but not the Trinity.

There are other illustrations that have been tried as well. It has been pointed out that each beam of light is made up of three separate rays, the actinic which is invisible, the luminiferous which is visible, and the calorific which gives heat and can be felt but not seen. On the surface, this sounds like an excellent example of the Father who is invisible, the Son who is visible, and the Spirit whose presence can be felt. But again, take notice that all three rays must be present simultaneously in order for it to be light. The actinic ray alone, is not light. All three rays must be present together to make light. In the Trinity, Jesus is fully God, as are the other Persons.

There are more, such as the three leafed clover, the triangle, the egg, or even time - past, present, future - but these are also useless in describing the indescribable Trinity! But what is even more striking to me is that none of these attempts to explain or describe the idea that God is Triune, can be found in the pages of Scripture. In virtually every instance, Scriptures referenced to support the Trinity must be interpreted from a preconceived notion that God is Triune. In other words, you must already believe it is so, then you can infer it from certain Scriptures and construct all sorts of mental sketches to support the veracity of the idea. Every commentary, dictionary, or other resource book I have researched, agree that the doctrine of the Trinity is not found explicitly in Scripture. The assertion is that it is a revealed doctrine, but in reality it is a fabricated doctrine; high sounding words with no substance; an opinion, and nothing more.

So again, we are expected to believe that 3rd century theologians, called together by the Emperor Constantine, put in writing what was already believed and taught by the Christian majority. Nevermind that there are no explicit Scriptures that tell us God is three,while there are 1000’s that clearly describe Him as One, and that He alone is the creator. Nevermind that Jesus did not claim Deity or equality with God in any way, but always affirmed that God was greater than himself, that his authority and power were given to him by God, and that God was not only his Father, but his God. And nevermind that the Holy Spirit does not have a name, and seems to be curiously missing in many of the Scriptures where one would expect him to be if he were an equal member of the Trinity. The council of Nicea, in 325 AD, dealt primarily with advancing the idea of the Deity of Christ. Concerning the 3rd Person of the Trinity, it says only “and we believe in the Holy Spirit”. It took another 100+ years to formulate the Trinity that we know today stating that each Person - Father, Son, and Spirit - are equally God.

God’s Thoughts

The Bible tells a very different story and uses entirely different ideas to illustrate the relationship between the Father and the Son. In John 15, Jesus calls himself the Vine. He refers to the Father as the Gardener, and the disciples are the branches. Notice the figures in this teaching of Jesus. They show exactly the relationship between God, Jesus, and believers. Clearly, the Father and the Son are not of the same nature, or essence. God, the Gardener, planted the vine and cares for it, pruning its branches and so forth. The Vine, Jesus, has his roots in the soil and is of the same substance as the branches. The branches must be “in” the vine in order to bear fruit and be useful. The Vine gives life to the branches but nothing in this illustration attempts to describe a Triune God or that Jesus is himself God, for if that were the case, then every true believer would also be god because we are “in” Christ. John tells us how Jesus could have life in Himself, he says, “For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.” -John 5:26 (ESV)

Also, consider 2Cor 4:4. Here, Paul says that Christ is the “image” of God. Image is eikon (icon) in the Greek. An icon is an image, a representation of something. We speak of certain persons as being “iconic figures”. The meaning is that these people are representative of something bigger than themselves - a movement, a corporation, etc. Bill Gates, for example, is an iconic figure as the founder of the massive, worldwide Microsoft corporation. When I look at my computer desktop I see icons. Each icon represents a different file or program. Whichever file or program I want to work with, I simply click on the appropriate icon and it takes me there. That’s what Paul meant when he said that Jesus is the image of God; He represents God - He is our way to God. It is this principle precisely that Jesus revealed when he said “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes to the Father but by (or through) me.” An icon is NOT the thing it represents, it gets you to the thing it represents!

Paul also speaks of Jesus as having “the fulness of the Godhead (God-essence, or Deity)” dwelling in him (Col 2:9; 1:19). If Paul believed Jesus was God, the 2nd Person of the Trinity, he would not have to say that the fulness of Deity dwelt in him. This would be already evident. Note that in Col 1:19 that God was pleased to have His fullness dwell in Christ. Paul understands Jesus as one in whom God’s fullness was expressed, and it was God’s plan that it should be that way. This is very different from being God. These are clear and unequivocal statements of Christ's nature. Not "God the Son", the 2nd Person of a Triune God, or any such metaphysical theory, but a man begotten by God, in whose character, actions, and words, we see the invisible God.

The Bible does not contain illustrations used to describe God’s nature as being “three in one”; because it never states that God is Triune in nature. But Paul warned us against falling prey to “philosophy and empty deception according to the traditions of men” (Col 2:8). The KJV uses the phrase “vain deceit”. Beginning in Paul’s day, and taking root in the creeds of the 3rd and 4th centuries, the Church has been led astray by deceitful vanities which have no ground in Scripture.

Brothers and sisters, truth matters! It’s time to take a serious look at the doctrines we have so blindly accepted and see the truth we’ve been missing!

The Son of God and The Gates of Hell

2014-03-02T15:01:00.000-05:00

Matthew 16:13-21 (ESV)

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ. From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.

This passage of Scripture represents a turning point in the ministry of Jesus, as well as one of the most controversial, and debated of His sayings. The turning point comes in verse 21 when Jesus began to talk to his disciples about his death and subsequent resurrection. The controversy and debate arise from the question of what is meant by "on this rock I will build my church." But it seems to me also that even more controversial and debatable is the question, what did Peter mean when he said "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God" , and what are "the gates of hell".

Peter's Confession

When asked by Jesus, "who do men say that I am?" the answers were varied, but generally considered him a prophet. But when he said "who do you say that I am?", Peter spoke up with confidence and conviction, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God". The fact that “you” is plural in the text indicates that Jesus did not direct his question to Peter alone; however, true to his impetuous nature, Peter is the one who opened his mouth and blurted out the answer… inspired by God as it turns out! The traditional interpretation of this phrase attributes Peter as recognizing Jesus full Divinity. In other words, Peter recognized Jesus as not merely the Christ, but "the Son of the Living God" hence, God the Son. But this interpretation dangerously reads into the text something that is not there - a preconceived notion based on the accepted doctrine of the Trinity. There is no ground whatsoever for inverting the title Son of God into God the Son… the Bible never does it!

These titles, Son of God and God the Son, are not the same and, in fact, have completely different meanings. In the first place, the title “Christ” is the equivalent of the Hebrew Messiah, meaning "king, anointed one, or chosen one". Christ is not descriptive of Deity, but representative of Deity! The Hebrew kings of old were messiahs; they were anointed of God, chosen to represent God to the people. Secondly, in Old Testament passages such as 2 Sam 7:14; Psa 2:7; and Psa 89:4,26-28, the concept of “son” is also synonymous with Messiah, and this is surely what Peter meant when he called Jesus the Son of the Living God! As Christ, he is the anointed one of God; God’s representative, the coming one of promise. The title Son of God means essentially the same thing but more fully expresses his unique relationship to the Father as the only begotten of God. Neither of these designations though are descriptive of, or even suggestive of Deity.

Further, note how the parallel passages read. Luke 9:20 says, "You are the Christ of God", while Mark 8:29 says simply, "You are the Christ". To ascribe Deity to Jesus because of the addition of the term Son of God in this passage is a leap from the clear meaning of the text. Also, it should not be overlooked that Jesus blessed Peter for his bold confession saying "flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven." Do we really want to argue with what God revealed to Peter? Peter's revelation was consistent with the Scriptures regarding the identity of Messiah, and nowhere does the Bible teach that Messiah would be God, 2nd Person of a Trinity, or otherwise. And so, the Father fully revealed to Peter the truth about His Son, and Jesus required no further explanation from him. The teaching of progressive revelation, that God revealed himself as triune in nature over time, does not serve truth, but only gives license to theologians to change the text and attribute their own twisted meaning to Scripture.

One last observation should be pointed out here. In verse 20 Jesus himself affirms his identity as “the Christ” and charges the disciples not to make it known. If in fact the phrase “Son of the living God” goes beyond the meaning of Christ and attributes Deity to Jesus, wouldn’t that have been the focus of Jesus charge of silence to His disciples? After all, how much more of a shock would it be to learn that they were in the presence of Almighty God in the flesh? Yes, I think Jesus would have told them not to tell anyone he was God, because they certainly were not ready for such a revelation yet. But that’s not what he did, he charged them not to tell anyone he was the Christ! Even Trinitarian scholars know that the disciples had no concept of a Triune God at this time. It is not sound reasoning to think that God the Father revealed to Peter that Jesus was also God! Let’s wake up! Jesus, by his own admission, is the Christ, the Messiah, God’s anointed One; all synonymous with “Son of God”! I think it is much better to agree with Jesus. Let God be God, and let Jesus be the Son of God!

Who/What is the Rock?

Jesus answered Peter's "You are the Christ" with "You are Peter". In Greek, Peter is "Petros", meaning rock, or stone. But when Jesus said "and on this rock" he used the word "petra" rather than "Petros". Petra is the word for a large rock, as found in Jesus parable about the man who built his house on the rock, rather than on sand. (Matt 7:24). The question here is "to what or who was Jesus referring when he said "upon this rock I will build my church"? Was the rock Peter himself, or something else?

Generally, there are three schools of thought regarding this issue. The Roman Catholic Church maintains that Peter himself is the rock to whom Jesus referred. As such, apostolic succession is based on the person of Peter as the first pope. While there is some Scriptural support for the idea of Peter being the rock, there is no Scriptural evidence for a succession of pope's. Another way to interpret "upon this rock" is that Jesus Himself is the rock to whom he referred. Again, where there is Scriptural support for Jesus being the foundational rock upon which the church is built, it's difficult to justify this meaning in context. It's an abrupt change of direction in language; almost as if he acknowledges Peter as a small rock then points to himself as the big rock saying, “and on this rock (me) I will build my church”. The better interpretation, and the one generally favored by most evangelical Christians, is that the rock upon which the church is built is the truth revealed by God, and confessed by Peter that, Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

The Church is founded on the confession that Jesus is God's Son, the Christ, and that He was sent to show us the Father and ultimately become the sacrifice for our sin. No one comes to the Father except through Jesus. It is confessing with the mouth that He is Lord, and believing with the heart that God raised him from the dead that affects our salvation. When I first became a Christian I was told that my sin offended God and that Jesus died to satisfy that offence. Jesus, as God's Son, was sacrificed on my behalf so that I might have a relationship with God through him. The doctrine of the Trinity was taught later. At no time was I ever told I must believe that Jesus is God in order to be saved! And I submit that it is the same for multitudes. It is after entrance into the the Church by confession of Jesus as the Son of God that the language of Scripture is changed so that Jesus becomes "God the Son", 2nd Person of the Trinity, equal to God the Father in every way yet not a second God but somehow, mystically, three persons in One God. But in spite of the fact that teaching about the person of Jesus and his relationship to God has been distorted by Greek philosophy introduced into the Church in the early years, the Church continues to grow on the basis of Peter's confession.

The Gates of Hell

This church, which Jesus identifies as "my church", will not be stopped or hindered by the "gates of hell". This is good news no matter how you interpret, but to what exactly was Jesus referring?

I was reading an introduction to a study on the book of Acts prior to writing this article in which the author referred to Matthew 16:18. His sense of the meaning was that the devil and his armies would have no power to hinder the advancement of the Church. In other words, that author, like the majority of the protestant christian church, understands “gates of hell” as referring to the powers, or forces, of the devil. The fact that Jesus assures us that they will not prevail is a strong affirmation of his power, and our ultimate victory. This is a wonderful truth! However, though I am well aware that we christians are engaged in warfare against the forces of evil (Eph 6), and we have power over them in the name of Jesus, I don’t believe this passage has that intended meaning. Yet, in my nearly 40 years of being a Christian, I can’t recall a single sermon or teaching to the contrary!

I began writing this on a Sunday evening and just that morning our associate pastor made reference to Matthew 16:18 in his sermon. His take on it was a little different. To him, the gates are not representative of power, they are not weapons. Therefore, in Christ, we have the power to break down and overcome every obstacle that would stand in our way of advancing the Church. We have been assured of victory as we storm the gates of hell. I agree that gates are not weapons, but once again, the central idea in his interpretation is the supposition that the forces of evil are in hell! But where does that idea come from? The Bible I read reveals that the devil is the “god of this world”; “the prince and power of the air”, and that his demons are the evil angels, the “principalities and powers that dwell in the heavenlies.” (2Cor 4:4; Eph 2:2; 6:12; 1Pet 3:22).

The answer to our question, what is meant by “gates of hell”, is obvious, I think, if we take the time to define some terms and examine it closer. There are three words in the New Testament that are translated (by some versions, most notably the KJV) as hell. The word “gehenna” is used by Jesus to refer to a place of fiery destruction (Matt 5:22,29-30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15), and translated as hell in the NASB, KJV; tartarus is found only once in the New Testament at 2Pet 2:4, and refers to a prison where evil spirits are being held in chains for judgment. Then in our text and several other places, the word hades is used (Matt 11:23; Luke 16:23; Acts 2:27,31; Rev 6:8, 20:13,14). Hades is the god of the underworld in Greek mythology. Over time, his name came to designate the underworld itself, the abode of the dead. As such, Hades is the only Greek word providing a near equivalent to the Hebrew word sheol. Like Hades, sheol is the dwelling place of the dead in Hebrew thought. Whatever one may think about the state of the dead (whether conscious, or asleep awaiting resurrection) one thing is certain, Hades is not the same as Gehenna, nor is it the lake of fire or the prison where evil spirits are confined; Hades is the realm of the dead. And in fact, according to Rev 20:14 hades will be thrown into the lake of fire! The Bible nowhere teaches that the devil and his angels dwell in hades!

Second, the Hebrew Scriptures say that “hell is never satisfied” or “never gets full” (Prov 27:20; Isa 5:14) This is a use of sheol conveying the idea that death continues to claim lives, and so long as people die, they will end up in sheol, the place of the dead. There is no return. Gates are meant either to restrict or prevent what is outside from getting in, or to restrict or prevent what is inside from getting out! Since hades/sheol continues to grow it is reasonable to assume that the gates are in place, figuratively, to keep the dead inside. There is only one way to enter hades, and that is by death. In the Old Testament and subsequent Jewish tradition the “gates of Hades” are expressed as the gates of death (Job 38:17; Psalm 9:13). In other words, once one is dead he has no power to leave, the gates are closed - and one would assume - locked. However, according to Jesus, the gates of hades cannot prevail against his church!

The Good News

By now I hope you see where we are going with this. For all the righteous dead, and for those yet to fall asleep in Christ, there IS an exit!! The gates of hell, or we might say, the grave or power of death, has no authority over the true believer. We will rise!! In verse 21 it is recorded that Jesus began to tell the disciples about his coming suffering and death, but that after three days he would be raised. This is the turning point in Jesus ministry referred to earlier but it also gives context and credence to our interpretation of “gates of hell” as the power of death. The good news, the gospel of Jesus Christ, is that death does not have the final say in the lives of those who submit themselves to God, through Jesus. There is coming a day, a day when Jesus will return to set up the kingdom of God on earth. And in that day the dead in Christ will rise first, then we who are alive and remain will be changed, in a moment, a twinkling of an eye, and so shall we all be with the Lord. Death will be swallowed up by life - the gates of hell cannot prevail against the Church! This is good news indeed. Jesus said, “This is eternal life, that they may know You Father, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” (John 17:3).

The author desires your reaction and comments. Please check one of the reaction boxes below. To share you thoughts, post a comment.

Sympathizing With Our Weakness

2013-10-30T23:36:00.000-04:00

"Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin." -- Heb 4:14-15 RSV

This verse has always been meaningful to me, but all the more powerful since coming to the revelation that Jesus is not God. As a "recovering" Trinitarian (LOL), I always believed Jesus to be fully human and therefore capable of temptation, but I never thought too deeply about the deity of Christ co-existing with his humanity because doing so inevitably led to questions I couldn't answer. Any attempt to answer those questions and still retain the belief that Jesus was both God and man, just led to more confusion. And so, I just accepted it without trying to explain it.

But God has created us with the wonderful ability to think, to analyze, to discern, and when exercised positively, light is shed regarding some serious weaknesses in the doctrine of Christ's "dual nature". After all, how difficult could it have been for a "God-Man" to overcome temptation? Is it even possible for a God-Man to have been tempted at all, as other human beings experience temptation?

'Yes', people say, 'He was a man, but He was also God... no wonder He could be sinless... no wonder He could exercise such virtue and self control... how else could he have done all those miracles?' Without even realizing it, adhering to the Trinity doctrine, and consequently, the dual nature of Christ, places a barrier between Jesus and man. We take comfort in the humanity of Christ because we can relate to weakness and temptation, but at the same time, we separate ourselves from Him by believing him to be God!

It has been said that virtually all Trinitarians are practicing Monotheists, because it is impossible to hold a rational thought of three persons in One God without being guilty of worshiping three Gods. The fact is, we can think of, and focus on, only one Divine Person at a time. And it is likewise impossible to hold a rational thought of a God who became fully man, yet is still no less God. That is mysticism, and no Scripture supports it.

It is Jesus' genuine humanity that the Bible writers want us to see! (Acts 2:22; Rom 5:14-15 RSV; 1Tim 2:5) It is that very humanity that allows Him to be a high priest who can really "sympathize with our weaknesses," because He truly is one of us! (Heb 4:15) Think of it! While it is claimed that the orthodox Jesus is fully human, if he is also fully God, then he can be neither one nor the other! A God-Man would be a very different creature from any human I know. He would be in a class all by himself, and for that very reason he could never possibly sympathize with our weaknesses!

English: The Holy of Holies, lithograph by J.R. Jones, at the Library of Congress (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The main function of a High Priest was to be a mediator between God and man. The book of Hebrews is clear that the High Priest must be a man in every way (Heb 2:17-18), and Paul complies when he explicitly states “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;...” 1Tim 2:5). The high priest of the Aaronic priesthood entered into the “holy of holies” on the day of atonement to offer sacrifices for the nation. He was required to mediate in this way once each year. But Jesus “passed through the heavens” to enter into the literal holy of holies - the presence of Almighty God - to offer himself, once and for all, a worthy sacrifice for the sins of men. This, he could only accomplish as a real human being.

Let's be honest, no man has a clue what it is like to be God. If Jesus was truly both God and man, he could not possibly be a qualified mediator, and how then would it be possible for him “sympathize with our weaknesses"? And yet, IF the Scriptures plainly stated a human/divine dual nature, if they unequivocally declared the Trinity as taught by orthodoxy, then I would believe it. But the truth is: there are no such Scriptures that plainly state it, and not one that makes any such unequivocal declaration! What the Bible does say clearly is that He was "born" of a virgin - He had a beginning (Luke 1:35; 2:7 RSV); He grew in every way like any normal human being, developing and cultivating His relationships (Luke 2:52); and He related to Yahweh not only as His Father, but as His God (Mat 27:46; John 20:17; Rev 3:12; Eph 1:3; 1Pet 1:3).

Jesus prayed to His God and Father constantly, sometimes rising early and at times all night. I suggest that it was this intimate relationship He held with His Father, along with a revelation and understanding of His life's mission and purpose, that strengthened Him to always make the right decisions and to keep him from sinning (Heb 2:10; 12:2). The impressive truth is that we are likewise expected to pray and keep ourselves from sinning! Most christians, I think, are keenly aware of the high moral standard to which we are called. But is it in vain that these demands are placed upon us? Are we actually supposed to obey the Scriptural injunctions literally or should we just "'give up" and forget about ever living without sinning?

The fact is, Scripture demands that we strive to make right choices and keep ourselves from willful sin. But this is only possible so long as we BELIEVE it is possible; and it is much easier to believe it possible when we understand that Jesus is authentically human, and not also God.

Let's read the Bible for what it actually says instead of reading through the lens of tradition. And let's give the highest praise to God, the Father, for His "unspeakable gift" through Jesus Christ, His highly exalted Son (2Cor 9:15; Phil 2:9-11).

The author desires your reaction and comments. Please check one of the reaction boxes below. To share you thoughts, post a comment.

The Thief on the Cross

2013-10-23T21:56:00.000-04:00

“And Jesus said to him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.” --Luke 23:43 (NET)

This passage is considered a strong proof of the immateriality of the soul, and is typically cited to support the teaching that, upon death, the souls of the redeemed go directly to heaven. In this bible account the thief on the cross says to Jesus “remember me when you come into your kingdom". Clearly, he believed Jesus would indeed come into a kingdom at some future time. The prevailing interpretation understands Jesus' answer as a promise of something which far exceeded the petition. In effect Jesus said to him, "there is no need for you to wait until that day, you will be with me this very day."

This interpretation seems clear-cut, but we must ask: is that how the thief understood Jesus words, and more importantly, is it the meaning Jesus intended? If Jesus had something different in mind, what would it be, and how would one justify it based on the text? Virtually every mainstream bible resource supports the traditional view. In fact, pick up any bible commentary and you'll find pretty much the same thing. They unequivocally declare that in using the word 'today' Jesus defines the specific time in which the thief would be with him in paradise. The meaning of the text seems unmistakable!

But there IS another way to read the verse. It is a fact that the punctuation of a bible translation is left to human design and is not considered inspired. If one simply places the comma after the word 'today', the meaning is dramatically altered. The adverb, semeron (today), would then modify the verb 'I say' rather than 'to be', and so read “I tell you the truth today, you will be with me in paradise.

It has been argued that it would be nonsensical for Jesus to use the phrase "I say to you today" because it is already obvious that He was speaking today! But this argument is merely an attack on the intelligence of those who support that reading. Of course we realize that Jesus was speaking 'today'!! But it is not unheard of for one to preface a statement with the phrase “I'm telling you right now...”, in American vernacular. It's simply a way of pointing emphatically to what is being said. Similarly, could not Jesus have responded to the thief's request in such a way?

In a book by Anthony Buzzard, reference is made to a German translation which renders Luke 23:43 as “Truly I give you my assurance today: You will one day be with me in Paradise.” In a note, the author adds “Jesus does not wait until the last day, but promises the thief even now that his request will be granted.” (Our Fathers Who Aren't in Heaven, Buzzard, p.242).

Consider also, that a similar grammatical construction is found in Acts 20:26 where Paul says to the Ephesian elders "I declare to you THIS DAY that I have been faithful". Some argue that if Jesus meant “I tell you the truth today”, semeron would need to precede the verb, but that isn't necessarily true. It is clear what Paul means here. THIS DAY translates semeron, just as in Luke 23:43, and here, as in Luke 23:43, 'today' does NOT precede the verb. Should it then read "I declare to you, this day I have been faithful"? Obviously, that is NOT what Paul meant to say!

So then, we can see that moving the comma in Luke 23:43 is plausible. But we must still answer the question: why would we want to alter the the traditional understanding? The answer, in short, is that the traditional interpretation is based on faulty Biblical understanding of the human soul, and what happens at death.

Consider the following arguments...

What is meant by “paradise”? The word paradeisos is found three times in the Bible.

In 2Cor 12:2-4, Paul equates “the third heaven” with “paradise”. Evidently, it is God's abode, where Christ ascended after God raised him from the dead. It was there that Paul heard things which, he said, cannot be repeated or, simply could not be uttered.
In Revelation 2:7 we read of the “paradise of God” wherein is the tree of life which is promised to the one who conquers. Many scholars equate this with the garden of Eden and may also be the same paradise that Paul visited in 2Cor 12.
Then, of course, in our text Jesus refers to a place called paradise which, apparently is the same paradise as described in 2Cor 12 and Rev 2. But this is problematic; which brings us to the next argument.

English: Print by Gustave Doré illustrating the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, from the Gospel of Luke Русский: Притча богач и Лазарь из Евангелия от Луки, художник Гюстав Доре (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Where in Scripture can it be shown that Jesus entered heaven that very day? According to Acts 1:3 Jesus did not ascend into heaven until at least 40 days after his resurrection. The bible clearly tells us that Jesus died, was buried, and then resurrected on the third day. Luke had previously recorded Jesus as saying “and after they have scourged Him, they will kill Him; and the third day He will rise again." -- Luke 18:33 (NASB).There has been much speculation on how Jesus spent those three days, but according to Matt 12:40, Jesus said of Himself that he would "be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Many assert that by “heart of the earth” is meant Hades, the place described in Luke 16 in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). But it should be observed first that paradise is not mentioned in that story, only “Abraham's bosom” or “Abraham's side”. Heaven is never referred to in any other bible text as Abraham's bosom. Secondly, since it is a parable there is no reason to believe that Jesus was giving a factual account of the afterlife. In fact, the parable was not designed to teach about heaven or hell. Jesus was using a popular idea of the time to figuratively “poke a finger in the eye” of the self-righteous Pharisees. It was really about the Pharisee's attitude concerning rich and poor and of misinterpreting the Law of Moses for their own gain.

The more accurate understanding of “the heart of the earth” is, idiomatically speaking, in the grave or, the tomb. Some translations read “in the lower parts of the earth”. Any explanation that has Jesus going somewhere or doing something during those three days fails or refuses to acknowledge the plain sense of Scripture that Jesus was dead and in the tomb for three days.

Third, as noted above, being in the earth for three days is a picture of being dead and in the grave! If Jesus, the whole person, was not actually dead, it would render his resurrection pointless, for what need would he have for a glorified body if he could already go anywhere and do anything he wanted without one?! For Jesus to be dead he must have ceased from all activities associated with life, including consciousness. In numerous passages of Scripture, we are informed that the dead are unconscious.

“For in death there is no remembrance of thee: In the grave who shall give thee thanks?” Ps. 6:5.
“The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence.” Ps. 115 :17.
“His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.” Ps. 146:4.

Further, he must have been truly dead in every way in order for resurrection to maintain it's literal meaning as restoration of life, not merely revivification of a dead body.

Fourth, Acts 2:29-36 clearly shows that David was in the grave and did NOT go to paradise or heaven when he died? If David, a man after God's own heart, did not go to paradise/heaven when he died, why would Jesus proclaim that the thief would accompany him to paradise that very day?
Fifth, that the thief would not immediately go into paradise/heaven is in agreement with the rest of Scripture regarding what happens after death, not the least of which is the fact that Paul calls death "an enemy" in 1Cor 15:26. If it were true that we go directly to heaven at the time of death, we should then welcome it as a friend, not refer to it as the last enemy to be conquered! Not only so, but other Scriptures put our union with Christ “at his appearing”, which means either rapture or resurrection, not at death!

Finally, interpreting Luke 23:43 as “..., today you will be with me” does not prove the existence of a soul existing independent of the body, but presupposes it. In other words, one must already have in mind a view that man is made up of parts, such as soul and body, or body, soul, and spirit, and then read it into the text, including the placement of the comma. But numerous scholars, going back at least as far as Eusebius, and more importantly, the Bible itself, sees man as a whole being; a single unitary person.

Note the following quotes from various scholars:

Lake 2009, pp. 586–97: ‘The English translation of nepeš by the term “soul” has too often been misunderstood as teaching a bipartite (soul and body—dichotomy) or tripartite (body, soul, and spirit—trichotomy) anthropology. Equally misleading is the interpretation that too radically separates soul from body as in the Greek view of human nature. (See body; spirit.) N. Porteous (in IDB, 4:428) states it well when he says, “The Hebrew could not conceive of a disembodied nepeš, though he could use nepeš with or without the adjective ‘dead,’ for corpse (e.g., Lev. 19:28; Num. 6:6).” Or as R. B. Laurin has suggested, “To the Hebrew, man was not a ‘body’ and a ‘soul,’ but rather a ‘body-soul,’ a unit of vital power” (BDT, 492). In this connection, the most significant text is Gen. 2:7, “the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life [nišmat hayyîm], and the man became a living being [nepeš hayyâ]” (the KJV rendering “living soul” is misleading). … It is this essential soul-body oneness that provides the uniqueness of the biblical concept of the resurrection of the body as distinguished from the Greek idea of the immortality of the soul.’
Vogels (1994), "Review of "The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality", by James Barr", Critical Review of Books in Religion 7: 80, ^"It is generally accepted that in biblical thought there is no separation of body and soul and, consequently, the resurrection of the body is central. The idea of an immortal soul is not a Hebrew concept but comes from Platonic philosophy. It is, therefore, considered a severe distortion of the NT to read this foreign idea into its teaching.".
Dixon (2000) [9.2.1968], "What Is Man?", Emmaus Journal, "Several Evangelical theologians suggest that the concept of man possessing an “immortal soul” is not the teaching of the Word of God. Clark Pinnock argues that its source is Plato (or Greek philosophy in general), and not the Bible.".

One last thought. There are several accounts of people being resurrected from the dead in the bible, both Old and New Testaments. With the exception of Jesus, all resurrection accounts were to normal physical life and not immortality. In no case do we have anything written about their experiences while in the realm of the dead. There are no protests by anyone about having to leave paradise to come back to physical existence in the earth! It seems clear that death was an experience of complete insensibility. Although this is an argument from silence, it is, at least, worth considering.

In light of all the above facts, it would not be likely that Jesus was alive and in Paradise on that very day, much less, promise the same to the thief on the cross? By saying to the thief, “Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise”, Jesus associated paradise with the coming kingdom of God on earth and affirmed that the thief would have a place in that kingdom when he comes again to establish it. And so it is with us. When we die, we sleep until Jesus returns and awakens us. At that time, and only then, “...we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.” 2 Cor. 5:l0

The author desires your reaction and comments. Please check one of the reaction boxes below. To share you thoughts, post a comment.

Ten Thousand Angels

2013-09-02T20:30:00.002-04:00

“Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?” --Matthew 26:53 (ESV)

I play the bass guitar and sing with the worship band at my church. Having also been a worship leader, I like to keep informed on what people are doing and saying in the contemporary worship arena. I read an article recently which posed the question “Did Jesus Really Have a Choice?” In this article, the author makes reference to the old hymn, “Ten Thousand Angels”, and asks, could Jesus really have changed his mind and come down off the cross? The author did not offer answers, but petitioned comments from his readers. An intriguing question to ponder, inviting some interesting opinions.

The song's chorus goes like this:

He could have called ten thousand angels

To destroy the world and set Him free.

He could have called ten thousand angels,

But He died alone, for you and me.

Jesus helped by Simon of Cyrene, part of a series depicting the stations of the Cross. Chapel Nosso Senhor dos Passos, Santa Casa de Misericórdia of Porto Alegre, Brazil. Oil on canvas, XIXth century, unknown author. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I did some research on the hymn and discovered that it was written by Ray Overholt in 1958, who was not even a Christian at the time. His own story reveals that after writing many secular songs he wanted to write a Christian song, so he opened a Bible, which he admittedly knew little about, and began reading in Matthew 26:51ff where Jesus tells Peter to put away his sword. Jesus then says to Peter that he could at any time ask his Father and He would send 12 legions of angels. Mr. Overholt did not know at the time that 12 legions was 72,000, nevertheless he thought 'Ten Thousand Angels' sounded like a good song title! He then did some additional investigation to fill in the verses for the song. In a nutshell, it was Mr Overholt's most well-known song, and he became a christian only after singing it in a small country church where he responded to the preacher's message that followed.

In the article I read, the author was questioning the validity of lyrics in songs that may be doctrinally unsound. Although it could result in a popular song, he asks... is it actually true? Could Jesus really have come off the cross? If he could, would God have to rethink His plan of salvation? If Jesus didn't die on the cross, what about all the OT Scriptures that foretold of his suffering and death? What if Jesus didn't complete his mission on the cross, would he be guilty of sin – disobedience to the Father? If he sinned, could he be God?

I found it fascinating to realize that the writer of the song, although not a believer at the time, got it right about Jesus own will. Now, in crediting Mr. Overholt for 'getting it right', I don't mean to suggest that he was correct in all points of the song's lyrics. In context, it was about Jesus fulfilling his destiny (see Matt 26:54), by going through with the suffering of the cross, not about calling angels to take him off the cross. Nevertheless, Jesus himself said that he could have called on his Father to send 12 legions of angels (Matt 26:53) which is a powerful revelation, not only of Jesus' special relationship to the Father, but of his own free will! And, calling on the angel armies may suggest that Jesus could have bypassed man's salvation and went directly to judging the world!

Very often as I hear those who teach and preach, remarks are made about Jesus' “free will”, but it's as though they are speaking from both sides of their mouth. On the one hand they say he could have rejected his passion on the cross, and on the other that his Deity drove him to the obedience of the cross, making it beyond his ability to change. This is the kind of thinking revealed in the various comments that were given to the article to which I refer. As I read through each comment I knew I had to offer a view of my own.

The following is an edited version of what I wrote in response to the article:

Yes! Without a doubt, he could have rejected the cross, but I'm so glad he did not! There is no mystery here. The fact that he didn't call on the angel armies to free him and subsequently, died on the cross, is the reason God raised him from the dead and exalted him as both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36), and also why he is now worthy of our worship. Rather than asking the the question posed in the article, I think we should be asking "is it right to use language such as "robed in flesh", “three in one”, “Holy Trinity”, “triune God” and "God the Son" in our songs of worship, and doctrine. These terms are not found in Scripture, nor do they describe Biblical ideas! Instead, they are based on inferences and misinterpretations of Scripture which severely detract from the truth that Jesus was a genuine human being, a real man, the second (or last) Adam (1Cor 15:45, Rom 5:14ff), and that His Father is the only true God (John 17:3, 5:44).

John 1:1 says the "word was God", not that the word was "God the Son". John tells us Jesus was given the Spirit "without measure"(John 3:34). Paul defined this further when he wrote "For in him (Christ) the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily." (Col 2:9). Note also that in Col 1:19 it was pleasing to "The Father" that this should be so. If Jesus was in fact, God, there would be no need for Paul to write that the fulness dwelt in him. Naturally, all the fulness would be in him if he was God! The fact that Paul even writes it, proves that he did not think of Jesus as God. Further, Paul tells us It was God (The Father) who "in Christ" was reconciling the world to Himself. (2Cor 5:19).

Brothers and sisters, God cannot sin, God cannot be tempted, and God cannot possibly die! But Jesus, the man could do all three. That he was tempted “in all points” just like every other man means he could have sinned; he could have been disobedient. The fact that he was tempted, yet without sin (Heb 4:15), made him unworthy of death, since death comes by sin (Rom 5:12). And there is no dispute (at least among Christians) that he truly died, otherwise he could not have been truly resurrected from the dead! But God did raise him from the dead and thereby he became the "first-fruits" of those who sleep! (1Cor 15:20-23) Praise God, because Jesus overcame sin and now lives forever, we have forgiveness of sins and are promised eternal life as well.

The real question here is: “Are we interested in truth, or just keeping our tradition?” Our worship and doctrine took a wrong turn in history and we have unwittingly replaced the worship of God the Father with Jesus, as “God the Son”, worshiping him as God to the exclusion of The Father! But in John 4:23-24, Jesus says true worshipers will worship "The Father" in spirit and truth and that The Father is seeking such to worship Him.

Music is a powerful medium! Unfortunately, a vast majority of Christians learn theology from the songs we sing. We should stick to Biblical language in our songs and worship and refrain from terms, phrases, and concepts, which have no Biblical foundation. It's time for the Church to rethink doctrines like the Trinity which has gone virtually unscrutinized by most believers, and became the "official" doctrine of the Church through a history of ecclesiastical power wars, violence, and Imperial edict.

The author desires your reaction by checking one of the reaction boxes below. Please share your thoughts by posting a comment.

Who is God in John 1:1?

2013-07-08T22:39:00.000-04:00

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

--John 1:1 (ESV)

I have always found it interesting, to say the least, that the word “word” (logos) is capitalized here. Some years ago my son was questioning the doctrine of the Trinity after hearing arguments against it from an American convert to Islam. Now, I must confess that I was very flustered when questioned about this admittedly contradictory teaching. Before I even attempted to defend it, I prefaced my remarks with the undebatable statement, “it’s a mystery - you must take it by faith!” I knew that Trinitarian apologists depended heavily on the gospel of John, especially 1:1 to support the doctrine of the Deity of Christ and I remember going directly there to make my case. It made perfect sense to me at the time, that because the word was given a capital “W” it was obviously meant to highlight the fact that Jesus was being identified as the Word and the Word was God. If Jesus is God, and the Father is God, and the Spirit is God (although this passage says nothing about the Spirit), then the Trinity must be a true doctrine because the Bible also sets forth the truth that there is only One God. And since the Bible cannot contradict itself, the One God must be composed of three persons... case settled, the Trinity doctrine is upheld.

Of course, there were many Biblical facts I overlooked regarding the issue of Jesus’ nature, not the least of which is the irrefutable fact that Jesus NEVER claimed the designation “God”, for himself - EVER!. But, like most other Christians today (and the last 1700 years), I was taught the supposed “cornerstone” of Christian doctrine, the Trinity, and as all Trinitarians do, whether they realize it or not, I read that doctrine into this verse, as well as every other passage of Scripture that seemed to suggest it. I didn't realize it then, but I was guilty of reading my own preconceived ideas into the Scripture, thus changing its meaning in order to support what I believed to be true.

Every good Bible student knows that in the original manuscripts there is no punctuation or distinction between upper and lower case so, logos was NOT capitalized in the original documents. Further, there is nothing special or out of the ordinary about the syntax of logos in John 1:1 compared to its appearances everywhere else in the New Testament - over 300 times! It is always translated as word, saying, thought, account, speech, etc. Only here in John 1:1 is it capitalized and purported to provide proof for the Deity of Jesus. Further, logos is not used again in any verse of new testament Scripture as a reference to Jesus; so why do the translators capitalize logos in John 1:1?

Make no mistake, this is not done as a result of pure translation! It is interpretation based on the bias of the translators. This interpretative maneuver does a disservice to the English Bible reading public because it equates the Word with a personal being, separate and distinct from God the Father, and having an existence in eternity along with Him. This Trinitarian doctrine of the literal pre-existence of Jesus is no more than inference and conjecture given credence by translators capitalizing the Word. Thus, it is read as though John were saying that “Jesus was in the beginning with God and Jesus was God”, or that “the Son was in the beginning with God and the Son was God”.But we must posit the question: is this what the writer, John, wanted to say? If it is indeed what John meant to say then he could easily have done so plainly. But he did not! He said “the word” was in the beginning with God, and the word was God”! Further, the word of John 1:1 is said to be God, not the Son of God, or "God the Son". Look at it again: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Who is God in this verse?
Generally it is accepted that by God, in the first instance, is meant “the Father”. But if that’s true, then to be consistent, John must be saying that the Word was with the Father, and the Word was the Father. Do Trinitarian Christians really mean to say that Jesus (the Word) was Yahweh? Were they one and the same? If, as Trinitarians claim, the terms Jesus, the Word, and God the Son are all synonymous, why didn’t John clarify by saying “in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was the God the Son”?

This traditionally accepted view of John 1:1 is fraught with inconsistencies and errors of reason. The kind of logic that identifies the Word of 1:1 as a separate being, now known as "God the Son", on the basis of verse 14 (and the Word became flesh) is frankly, unfounded and nonsensical!. It is true that the word did become flesh, and John definitely equates that word with Jesus. But, if the logos of John 1:1 is taken in it’s normal usage, (plan, purpose, account, message, etc.) the conclusion of a pre-existent being would not only be avoided, it would be preposterous.

It has been suggested that John was drawing on the Hellenistic thinking of the day in his use of the term “logos”. Under the definition of “logos” in the “Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon” it says that

“A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. This word was well suited to John’s purpose in John 1.” --Strong, J. (2001). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

But the notion that John, an uneducated fisherman from Galilee, would have been familiar with the Greek philosophy of Heraclitus, Plato, or even a more contemporary Philo, doesn’t seem very likely. More probable is the observation that John used Hebraisms readily understood by Jewish readers of his day. In fact, John may well have been thinking in terms of the Hebrew davar (word), or perhaps more likely the Aramaic “memra” (word), in his use of logos. Remember that although the gospels were written in Greek, the authors, with the exception of Luke, were Hebrew and thought like Hebrews. In fact, modern scholarly work has recognized that Aramaic was the predominant language of the common people of Israel at that time, including Jesus himself. If this is true, then John would have used “word” (logos/davar/memra) as a synonym for God (Yahweh). This usage would have clear implications of John’s Jewish monotheistic roots and mindset.

The “Encyclopedia of Religion” states:

“Exegetes and theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity … Although the Hebrew Bible depicts God as the father of Israel and employs personifications of God such as Word (davar), Spirit (ruah), Wisdom (hokhmah), and Presence (shekhinah), it would go beyond the intention and spirit of the Old Testament to correlate these notions with later trinitarian doctrine.”

In his book, “The Only True God, A Study of Biblical Monotheism”, the author, Eric H.H. Chang writes in detail regarding the usage of memra in the Targums (a commentary of the Hebrew Scriptures in Aramaic). The “Word of the Lord God” is often used in tandem with “Yahweh God” as though it were a separate being. For example, in Genesis 18:17 the Targum reads thus:

“And the Lord said with His Word, I cannot hide from Abraham that which I am about to do; and it is right that before I do it, I should make it known to Him.”

Here, “the Lord” is Yahweh and “with His Word” is memra. This distinction is not seen in English translations of the Bible. The Word here is not to be understood as a separate entity any more than we are to understand “Wisdom” as a separate being who was with God in the beginning (Prov 1:20; 3:19; 8:12). Rather, the Word, like wisdom of Proverbs, is a personification of God’s creative thought, speech, purpose and plan which, in reality, equates to God Himself since it expresses His very being. John also uses a similar grammatical construction in 1John 1:2 where he refers to “eternal life” as being “with the father”.

Take into account also that regarding the promise of the Messiah, the Bible never proclaims or even alludes to the idea that God Himself would become a man, or that a being known as “the Word” or “God the Son” would become a man. Note what God said to Moses:

“I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him.” -- Deut 18:18-19 (ESV)

Consider the critical points in this prophetic word:

That God Himself would “raise up” the prophet. God accomplished this "raising up" when He miraculously created and implanted human seed into the virgin Mary (Luke 1:35). In this way, the birth of Jesus, the "second Adam" (Rom 5:12-19; 1Cor 15:45-49), God's word became flesh in that HIs plan was given expression through the vehicle of a human being whom God Himself prepared for such purpose (Heb 10:5-10). Also, Luke adds the helpful insight that Jesus “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man” (Luke 2:52)
That this prophet would be “like you [Moses]” and “from among their brothers”, meaning he would be a man, an Israelite, who had a close relationship with God, just like Moses. The bloodline of the Messiah can be traced through the Bible, but Matthew and Luke both give a detailed genelogical list of Jesus family tree. Take special note however, of Luke’s geneology where he traces Jesus ancestry all the way back to Adam, “son of God” (Luke 3:38). The point here is often overlooked but critical in understanding that Jesus was, according to Luke, a real human being with roots all the way back to the creation of the first man! There is no hint in Luke that Jesus was a hybrid "God-Man", only that Jesus was completely human and fathered by God. The parallel of two Adams found in Paul's' writings supports that he considered Jesus to be a man who came into existence like all men, through birth, with the exception that he was miraculously conceived.
That God would “put [his] my words in his mouth”. Over and over, Jesus himself declared that he did not speak his own words on his own authority but he spoke the words of his Father, God. The incarnation, “the word became flesh”, is God’s expressive mind embodied in the real flesh and blood person, Jesus of Nazareth, not a pre-existent being, God the Son, taking on human flesh. The Scripture says that “the Word became flesh”, not that God the Son became flesh! There is no such person as "God the Son" in the Bible or it's teachings. However, if Jesus was indwelt by the the Word (logos) or Memra of Yahweh, then it was Jesus explicitly speaking God's words, in God’s Name, and not his own - which is exactly what Jesus said, and what Moses prophesied! (John 14:10, 24; 17:8; Deut 18:18-19)

The Last Word

Finally, if John intended to convey to his readers that Jesus was God, an equal member of a Trinity, he not only could have said it plainly in John 1:1, he would have had ample opportunity to say it plainly throughout his gospel. But conversely, he closes his gospel with the simple, straightforward, statement of intent; that “...these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,... (John 20:31). Neither the title “Christ” nor the phrase “Son of God” means God in the Bible. Christ is the equivalent of the Hebrew “Messiah” which means ‘anointed one’ or “chosen One”. John’s argument was the same as that of Paul and the early Church; that Jesus was the Christ, (Acts 5:42; 17:3; 18:5,28) not that he was God. LIkewise, “Son of God” is a synonym for Messiah. To interpret “Son of God” as meaning “of the same substance”, as do the creeds of Christendom, is to ignore all logic and meaning of words, and to insert Greek philosophy into God's word. One cannot be both a Son of God and God, equal in every sense.

Conclusion
There is no question that most English translations of the Bible make certain passages, especially in the gospel of John, misleading. However, prayer and reason can prevail in revealing the correct interpretation of Scripture, so long as the seeker is willing to admit that he/she may have been mislead in their current understanding. Too often, we Christians ask for guidance of the Spirit to aid in our understanding, while concurrently approaching the Bible as though we already know certain things we have been taught to be factual. This is closed mindedness, and a closed mind is certainly no way to discover distinctions between truth and error. We must value truth over all, and be willing to let go of tradition, no matter how deeply seated!

A little reason goes a long way in uncovering the verity of the matter, but sadly, the doctrine of the Trinity has prevailed for so long, because of group mentality and fear, that an incomprehensible mystery is now touted as divine truth.Someone has perceptively said, “A lie repeated often enough carries more weight than the truth!” It’s time for Christians to rethink this incomprehensible doctrine, ask honest questions, and desist from the reliance of creeds that were formulated centuries after the death of Christ and the apostles!

The more I study, pray, and contemplate this truth - that Jesus is the Son of God, not God the Son - the more concerned I become of the ramifications for today’s church. I cannot help but wonder how God will judge this enormous deception and twisting of Scripture that has invaded His Church and deified His Christ, usurping the place of God the Father who, according to Jesus, is the only true God! (John 5:44; 17:3) I can only pray that with the plethora of information available today via the internet, along with the many quality books being written on the subject, more and more people will become enlightened to the truth. If God could get through to me, having been thoroughly entrenched in the false doctrine of the Trinity for almost 40 years, then I am convinced that He can, and will, make Himself known to others who sincerely seek the truth!

The Supremacy of The Son

2013-06-07T20:33:00.000-04:00

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. --The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Heb 1:1–4). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

We have been reading through the book of Hebrews recently and I was struck with the first four verses. It is truly astounding how indoctrination into trinitarian thinking causes one not only to ignore good scholarship, but also to simply overlook context and, simultaneously, miss entirely the important points of Scripture. These four verses serve as a prologue to the letter, as the writer gets right to the heart of the matter, setting the theme which is, the supremacy of the Son of God. Several points should be acknowledged here regarding the nature of God's Son.

According to orthodoxy, the trinity is comprised of three co-equal, co-eternal persons, but the evidence here and elsewhere throughout the Bible is contrary to that premise. In the first place, verse 2 declares that God spoke in times past by the prophets but in "these last days" He spoke by a Son. This fact argues strongly that the Son was not present in the past, as many trinitarians assert - certainly, at least, not present in any tangible sense. Orthodoxy likes to think of "Son" in Hebrews as "God the Son". But in fact, there is no justification for the inversion of Son of God to God the Son. Not only is the title "God the Son" non-existent here, but neither does it appear anywhere else in the Bible.The writer makes it very simple... “in these last days” God spoke through a Son, because there was not a Son for Him to speak through prior to these last days!

Second, the Son was "appointed heir of all things'. It is common reason that one who has been appointed cannot in any sense be equal to the one who does the appointing! Even if one holds to the idea that the Son is Deity, it cannot be reasonably affirmed that he is in any way an equal member of the Godhead - definitely not from this verse. Any attempt to make the Father and Son equal requires a great amount of double talk. This text, like the rest of the New Testament, simply does not support the teaching that Jesus is co-equal to God the Father, and therefore does not support the trinity.

Third, in setting forth the supremacy of the Son, the writer declares that it was "through the Son” that the world was created, or made. Again, trinitarianism associates this making of the world to John 1:1 where Jesus is said to be a person called “the Word” who existed with God in the beginning and was His agent in creation. However, a study of a few key words will lead us to a different conclusion. World, in the NT, is "usually the Greek word kosmos" according to the Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible. But in this text, the word is aion. The NASB has in it’s text notes "lit. ages", which is the basic meaning of aion. Further, the verb "made" is poieo in the Greek NT which has the meaning of creating something from something, as opposed to creation from nothing! Clearly, the writer is speaking of the world in the sense of “ages” of time.

Crucial to understanding this verse is the use of the word “through”. The word is dia in the NT Greek and can also be translated “for this reason”. Strong's Greek Concordance has

"‎2a the ground or reason by which something is or is not done. 2a1 by reason of. 2a2 on account of. 2a3 because of for this reason. 2a4 therefore. 2a5 on this account.” --Strong, J. (2001). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

This is significant in radically rethinking what the writer is saying here. What if the intention is that Jesus coming into existence is the "focal point" of time and creation? Perhaps the writer is saying that the entire world, especially the ages (past, present, and future) have Jesus as their glue, meaning, and purpose. This understanding would support the clear theme of Hebrews which is the superiority, or supremacy of the Son, without contradicting the teaching everywhere else in Scripture that God (the Father) alone, is the creator! The idea then would be that God ordered the ages of time (past, present, and future) with the Son in mind. .

Fourth, the Son is the "exact imprint" of His (God's) nature. No matter how exact, an imprint is still an imprint and not the original. An imprint is a charakter in the Greek NT which is an exact representation. NLT translates that he (the Son) expresses the “very character” of God. Certainly this is not too difficult to understand! The fact that the Son expresses perfectly God’s character does not make him God, 2nd Person of a trinity or otherwise. Again, even if one insists that he is Deity, God the Son, he is still not equal to the Father because he radiates God’s glory.

Fifth, after his sacrificial death he was raised and ascended into the heavens where "he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high". Again, how can we come away with a dogma that says the Son is equal with the Father from this picture? While the position of "right hand" is a high honor, indeed the highest honor, it is still a place of subordination to the one who has the throne. The "Majesty on HIgh" is a clear reference to Yahweh, the Supreme God.

Sixth, the writer clearly states in v4 that he (the Son) "became" (having become) superior to angels. The fact that he became superior to the angels is a clear indication that he was not previously superior. It is not insignificant that the writer chooses to use Psalm 8 here in reference to the Son.

Finally, the the Son's name was "inherited". Note that Philippians 2:10-11 establishes the fact that God exalted Jesus to his position as Lord and gave him the Name which is above all. All this is "to the glory of God the Father". There is no need to resort to double talk and mysteries to make sense of the Bible. And there is no requirement to accept a logical contradiction in order to have a saving relationship with God through Christ. Paul said in Romans 10:9-10 that if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved!

I came to understand the error of the trinity a few years ago and now continue to be amazed at how totally blinded I was to the plain truth of Scripture. The message that God the Father alone is the only one who is truly God (John 17:3; 5:44-47), and that Jesus His Son, is the chosen human vessel in whom God’s fullness was pleased to dwell (Col 1:19; 2:9), jumps out of the pages of the Bible once one sees it!!

The author desires your reaction and comments. Please check one of the reaction boxes below. To share your thoughts, post a comment.

What The Resurrection Means to Me

2013-04-03T13:37:00.000-04:00

Easter 2013 has just passed and I've been ruminating on the whole message of the resurrection. Being a Christian means believing the impossible! We believe in an invisible, eternal God; a God no one has ever seen and who has always existed. He has no beginning or ending, yet we believe not only that He exists, but that He is personally interested and involved in our lives. Impossible!? Trinitarian teaching complicates this impossibility even more by insisting that there are three separate and distinct persons which make-up the nature of the Godhead. All three persons of the Trinity are equally God, yet there are not three Gods, but One. And if that's not impossible or illogical enough, the 2nd person of this Trinity is both man AND God simultaneously! Trinitarianism maintains that this "mystery" of God is what sets Christianity apart from all other world religions. To that assessment I heartily concur... it does set it apart. The problem though is that it sets it apart from reason as well. It creates not just an impossibility, but a logical contradiction. Is it necessary for Christians to be set apart from reason? More important, does the Bible make those declarations about His nature? No, it does not.

In a nutshell, the invisible, eternal God, revealed Himself to the world through a son, a man He appointed (Heb 1:1-2, Acts 17:31). Because this man, His only begotten son, was obedient and successful in overcoming every temptation to sin (Heb 4:15), perfectly reflecting God's image (Heb 1:3), God raised him from the dead and made him Lord over all (Phil 2:9-11). Over all except for Himself, of course - 1 Cor 15:27-28. Now, we're still talking impossibilities here, but there is no need to go further than what is written in the Scriptures. There is no contradiction in the above statements. God is still invisible and eternal, one single person, or entity. Our salvation is founded on knowing Him through the one He sent, and on believing that God raised him from the dead! (John 17:3, Rom 10:8-9) The only other impossibility involved in the Christian faith is our hope, ie. the hope of resurrection. Because Jesus lives, we are told that we too will be raised from the dead to live forever, and to reign with King Jesus in the age to come. Impossible!?

Traditional, orthodox Christianity, has made much of Jesus birth (the incarnation) and deity. According to the creeds he (Jesus) is "very God of very God". But the Bible says little about his birth - just a couple of chapters in two of the four gospels - and nothing at all about his deity, except what is inferred by the doctrine of the Trinity! What it does say clearly however... what it makes as the central issue of Christianity, is the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. An impossibility to be sure, but not a contradiction! Now when I say impossibility, of course, I mean impossible with men. But with God, all things are possible. It is a matter of faith, but faith does not require acceptance of a contradiction. The validity of Christianity as a credible religion hangs on the veracity of the resurrection. If Jesus wasn't raised from the dead, the apostle Paul says, then we are still in our sins and have no hope of life beyond the grave. (see 1 Cor 15)

There was a time when resurrection was little more to me than a word. I'm not referring only to my life prior to conversion, but as a believing Christian. And I'm certain that I'm not alone in this matter. Somewhere in history, the focus of our hope moved from the resurrection of the dead, to death itself! Because the majority of traditional Christians believe that they will go to heaven when they die, resurrection has lost it's impact. This idea of the soul leaving the body to go directly into the presence of God at death has relegated resurrection to a reuniting of the soul with a new body when Jesus returns, all the while living with him in heaven (without bodies?). Even if one believes that the "spiritual" body Paul speaks of in 1 Cor 15, is literally an unseen ghostly body, it renders the purpose of a new body at resurrection pointless! But the fact is, this whole scenario of a soul leaving the body and going to heaven at death, changes the fundamental meaning of death AND resurrection!

The basic definition of death is "cessation of life". When death occurs, life ceases! It is not just a body that expires and stops functioning, it is the entire person who dies. This is why Paul calls death an enemy! When Jesus died, he really died. He didn't go anywhere or do anything as a disembodied spirit, he just lied there in the tomb. But the good news is that God raised him up out of that tomb. He was resurrected! That's what resurrection means. It means to get your life back after being dead! Over and over, when the Bible speaks of the resurrection of Jesus, it uses the term "from the dead". This is significant because "the dead" is a plural noun in the Greek text. It literally means "the dead ones"; ie. dead people, not living spirits. Further, the word "from" is a preposition meaning "out of" or "among". The point should be clear. Jesus was raised back to life from among all those in the state of being dead.

If Jesus didn't really die in this basic, literal sense, then it couldn't be said of him that he should "taste" death for all men. (Heb 2:9) And if Jesus didn't literally and genuinely die, he couldn't have been resurrected! But he really was dead, and now he lives! Further, the good news is that we who have repented towards God and have faith in Jesus, who believe that God raised him from the dead - we Christians - are given the promise - the hope - of resurrection as well! Paul says that Jesus is the "firstfruits" of those who sleep (1 Cor 15:20-23). Firstfruits simply means that Jesus was the first one to be raised from the dead, never to die again - there are more to follow! That's me... and you too, if you're a believer! Hallelujah!!

Further, sleep is a metaphor for death. Think about it. Why would death be referred to as sleep if we were present with the Lord in a state of acute awareness? When you sleep you don't know anything, it's as though you don't even exist. Time passes without awareness. What a wonderful thought that when death comes, time will have no meaning, and the next thing we experience is being awakened when God calls us! (John 5:28) And not only will we awaken when we hear His voice, we will awaken with new bodies which God will provide - a body just like that of the risen Lord Jesus (Phil 3:21). This is the "spiritual" body that Paul refers to in 1 Cor 15.

So, the resurrection, for me, means LIFE! Life now, and life in the age to come! Jesus said, "I am the resurrection and the life, if any man believes in me, even though he dies, he will live." (John 11:23-26) To "sleep in Jesus" or be "dead in Christ", is to have the assurance that we will arise from death at his return, never to die again. (1 Thess 4:13-18) Because of this hope I have purpose in this life. I have a real incentive to follow Jesus' example and learn obedience to the Father. I have no fear of death because I know that nothing can separate me from the love of God in Christ Jesus! (Rom 8:37-39). The resurrection is no longer just a word, or idea to which I give lip service, but the focus of what it means to be a follower of Jesus Christ. In the words of that old song,

Because he lives, I can face tomorrow
Because he lives all fear is gone
Because I know, I know who holds the future
And life is worth the living, just because he lives.

This is what the resurrection means to me!!

Please check one of the reaction boxes below. To share you thoughts, post a comment.

Who Do You Worship?

2013-03-24T18:31:00.000-04:00

John 4:21-26 (ESV) ²¹Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. ²²You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. ²³But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. ²⁴God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” ²⁵The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things.” ²⁶Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am he.”

As I sit here in my sun room reading, studying, writing, my mind wanders back to August of 2008 when I was doing much the same thing but in a different location and under different circumstances. At that time, having been a "born again" Christian for most of my life - about 40 years - I began to seriously question my faith; ie., why I believed the things I was taught to believe. I didn't doubt the existence of God, or the historical Jesus, but many of the ideas that I had been indoctrinated with seemed contradictory. And, in real life, my personal experience as well as the experiences of those I observed around me failed to line up to the supposed truths that I heard and accepted for so many years. If the Bible is God's Word, why do so many people arrive at different conclusions about what it teaches? If Christians are the "body of Christ" and we are supposed to be of the same mind, why are there so many denominations - sometimes being separated by the slightest points? The television evangelists were preaching that God wants people to prosper, but we must give - usually to their ministries - in order for God to bless us. And in reality, the only ones benefiting financially from their preaching seems to be the preachers themselves! Is this the message that Jesus brought? Is this the Church that Jesus said He would build? All these things, and more, led me on a "quest for truth"

Thank God that it didn't take years to arrive at an answer! It was literally within moments of throwing my hands in the air and calling out to the Lord Jesus that I began to be enlightened. In my search, I was led to a website that God used to open my eyes, but that was just the beginning. I have since discovered numerous resources that have aided me in my quest. I have now discovered the reality of the beatitude which says: “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied." - Matt 5:6 (ESV)

Steeped in Tradition
In the passage of Scripture above, Jesus confronts the "tradition" of a Samaritan woman with regard to the worship of God. She believed that God should be worshiped on "this mountain", referring to Mt Gerizim where her forefathers, the Samaritans, had worshiped for years, and where there was once a temple that rivaled that of Jerusalem. The Jews, of course, worshiped on Mt Zion, Jerusalem. But Jesus corrects both views by declaring that location was not of primary concern. Rather it was a matter of knowledge.

Jesus pointed out that they, the Samaritans, did not know what they worshiped. The Samaritans were an offshoot of Jewish ancestry but whose worship of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, was tainted by the introduction of various pagan rites and beliefs which they had incorporated as a result of foreign captivity. This is why they were despised by the Jews; their worship of God was not according to Torah; it was not pure. Jesus then goes on to assert not only that Jews DO know what they worship, but the time is coming, and now is, that "true worshipers" will worship the Father in spirit and truth."

Is it possible that Christianity has become, like the Samaritans, a religion tainted with pagan ideas and practices, Greek philosophy, so that we no longer know what we worship?

According to Jesus, worship is all about "the Father." The word "worship" appears eight times in these six verses. While there are numerous lessons that can be learned about worship here, what strikes me most is the fact that of the eight times the word is used, four of them refer to the true object of worship which is "the Father". Notice especially in verse 23 that Jesus says:

True worshipers worship the Father
True worshipers worship Him (the Father) in spirit and in truth
The Father is seeking such (true worshipers) to worship Him

It is a powerful realization, when one takes the time to examine the texts of Scripture, that in no place and at no time does Jesus ever accept worship as God. Attempts to find any reference to the worship of a 2nd person of a trinity, or any member of a trinity for that matter, are futile! In no place does the Bible ever speak of God as three, three in one, or triune.

In the birth account of Jesus, the kings (magi) desired to worship him (Jesus), but their purpose was to worship the newly born "King of the Jews"; ie. Messiah, or Christ - not God. (Matt 2:2) Further, in Rev 5:11-14 the elders said "with a loud voice, worthy is the Lamb that was slain (a direct reference to Jesus) to receive...honor, and glory, and blessing." But then in verse 13, the same is said of "Him that sits upon the throne (a direct reference to God Almighty) AND unto the Lamb..." However, with regard to the word worship, the elders "fell down and worshiped Him that lives forever and ever." (Rev 4:9-10; 10:6; 15:7 - where this phrase clearly refers to God, not Jesus)

Worship God
Worship is translated from the the Greek proskuneo meaning, literally, to bow down, or prostrate oneself; to do obeisance in respect of the honor, dignity, power and/or authority of the one receiving worship. In Rev 19:10 and Rev 22:8-9 the angel refused worship from John and clearly instructed him to "worship God". Again, in Matt 4:10 Jesus' temptation to worship Satan was answered with "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve." What is of particular interest is the fact that the word proskuneo is always applied to the worship of God Almighty, the Father, but can also be used of others. For example, in 1Chron 29:20, the Greek version (the Septuagint) employs the word proskuneo when it says that all the people "bowed... to the LORD and to the king". It is also used of the antichrist - the beast (Rev 13:8; 13:12). There are many other examples which I will leave to the reader to discover for him/herself, but it is imperative to understand that the word proskuneo itself does not designate the worship only of God.

Critical for understanding is the fact that the Bible everywhere admonishes us to worship God alone. The fact that "worship" can be used of others demonstrates that we must understand who and why we worship! In our text, the woman tries to side step the issue by stating that when Messiah comes he would reveal everything, to which Jesus replied, "I am he". The point here is that Jesus admits to being the Christ, the anointed one of God. While Jesus is worthy of praise and adoration for his character, works, and status as both Lord and Christ, he never accepts, nor encourages the worship of Himself as God. Rather, He always points to the Father as the One men should worship. In fact, he refers to himself in John 14:6 as "the way" to the Father. This means he is not the destination, but the door. Further, in Col 1:15 he is the image of the invisible God. The word image in that verse is eikon in Greek. An icon is a representation. Those familiar with computers know that an icon is a picture, or symbol, that represents a file or program on your computer. When you click on that image it opens the file or program you want, but the icon is not itself the file or program, it is the way.

It has become clear to me that the Church today has unwittingly substituted the worship of God for the worship of Jesus. We have made Jesus, who is the icon, the image of God, the object and final destination of our worship, instead of the "way" which God provided to Himself. I make no judgments here regarding the practice of idolatry, I only wish to point out that this substitution is so subtle that most people don't realize they are doing it. Yet, it is a very slippery slope, and a dangerous error for which I personally have repented. Jesus declares without equivocation that "true worshipers will worship the Father..."!

Massive Deception
A "true" worshiper is one who worships in truth! Those who worship the Father "must worship Him in spirit and in truth." The question is, how is it possible to worship the Father 'in truth' when we fail to follow Jesus own teaching about who God is? In John 5:44 and John 17:3 Jesus describes the Father as "the only true God"; ie., the only one who is truly, or in reality, God. Throughout the gospels he declares himself as the one who speaks God's message, the words God gives him to speak, and does only what God tells him to do (references are too numerous to mention). And even after his resurrection and ascension to the right hand of God, Jesus refers to the Father as "my God" (Jn 20:17; Rev 1:6; 3:2; 3:12). Further, the apostle Paul makes reference not just to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, but "the God" and Father (Eph 1:3; 2Cor 1:3; 11:31), as also does Peter (1Pet 1:3) Does it not seem odd that God would have a God?

What strange blindness holds such power over believers that we cannot see the plain and simple truth of Scripture, but instead cling to, and in some cases vehemently argue for, an unintelligible creed which changes the person-hood of God into a substance made of three persons? I cannot comprehend all the dynamics included in this massive deception, but I know this, in the words of that great hymn, "I once was blind, but now I see".

So the question dear reader is this: Who do you worship? Are you willing to examine this issue with a clear mind and without bias, or will you simply continue to accept tradition without examination? As I complete this article it is Palm Sunday and therefore appropriate to reference John 12:13. When the crowds hailed Jesus, shouting "Hosanna, blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord", were they worshiping him as God, or as Messiah - king of Israel? Friends, Jesus is our king and as such, he is worthy of our praise and adoration. Without his life, his teaching, his death, resurrection and ascension, we would be lost in our sin and alienated to God, without hope of eternal life. But the Bible is clear, everything about Jesus points us to God, and to the fact that it was God who gave us Jesus' life and teaching; God who raised him from the dead and exalted him as Lord, to sit at His right hand.

So, as God is actively seeking those who will worship Him in spirit and truth, are you, or will you be, one found by Him?
-----------

Please react to this post by checking one of the boxes below
and/or posting a comment.

The Bible’s Greatest Affirmation

2013-03-17T22:53:00.001-04:00

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." - John 3:16 (KJV)

Is there any more well-known Bible verse than John 3:16? It is certainly the most recognized, memorized and repeated Bible verse of all time; at least, right up there with “The Lord’s Prayer” and “The 23rd Psalm”. And yet, in all it’s popularity it’s true message has evaded most of us, as it is very likely the least understood, and perhaps the most misinterpreted Scripture as well! Now that is a bold assertion to be sure but a simple examination will serve to explain.

Key Words

To discover what is really in this great verse it’s important to examine some “key” words. The first word we need to understand is God/god - "for God...". This word comes from the Greek theos meaning "the supreme divinity" or “general appellation for deities and divinities”. The word theos is used over 1300 times in the New Testament and virtually always refers to God the Father, the Almighty God - Yahweh. There are a few exceptions which we will discuss later.

According to Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament,

"Whether Christ is called God must be determined from John 1:1; 20:28; 1 John 5:20; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8f, etc.; the matter is still in dispute among theologians" (emphasis mine)

Θεος is used of “whatever can in any respect be likened to God, or resembles him in any way”: Hebraistically, equivalent to “God’s representative or vice-regent,” of magistrates and judges, John 10:34f --Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.

the person or thing to which one is wholly devoted, for which alone he lives, Philippians 3:19 --Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.

It should be clear from reading the above that the exact meaning of “God/god” must be determined from context. It is important to see that both the Father and Jesus are referenced here, but only one is called God. It is a striking thought that those who subscribe to trinitarian dogma fail to recognize or question the fact that if the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Spirit is God, then to make reference to "God" must of necessity refer to all three persons equally and at the same time. This then would render this sentence illogical. To maintain the sense of the trinity it should read, "the Father" so loved the world that He gave "the Son". But again, this would create another big problem because according to trinitarianism, there is perfect equality among the persons of the godhead. How is it then that only the Father loved the world and how can the “giving” of the Son be considered in any way equality? Without the hindrance of trinitarian doctrine, we are free to see that it is, in fact, God's love (the Fathers love) that is at the heart of the entire plan of salvation involving His Son. We will take up this subject later in this document.

The second key word is "so". This little word is generally overlooked but it carries a great deal of information. It is popularly understood quantitatively, ie: "this much". But "so" is translated from the Greek outos and although it can legitimately be understood quantitatively, it is better understood qualitatively, meaning "in this way, in this manner, like this"! It is beneficial to understand that the wording is NOT "God loved the world 'so much'", but rather, "God 'so loved' the world". This does not detract from the measure of God's love for the world, but places the emphasis where it should be, on the manner in which He demonstrates His love! In what way did God love the world? He loved the world in this way... "so"!!

This brings us to the next word for our study. The third key word to understand is "gave". When God loved he gave. Love is an active verb. But just how are we to understand the meaning of God giving His son? The word gave is edoken the 3rd person singular, indicative, aorist, active form of the verb didomi in the Greek text. This indicates the giving of a person for the benefit of others (Thayer's Greek Dictionary)

Again, the popular interpretation of God giving His son is that he was sent from heaven where he resided prior to becoming a human. In that sense of giving, God the Father sacrificed His son by allowing him to leave heaven, enter a woman's womb, get born, and become a man. This is the traditional, orthodox view of incarnation; ie. God the Son taking on human flesh yet never giving up deity.

There are numerous problems with interpreting the Bible narrative in this way; so much so, we cannot possibly address them all here. There is, however, a better way, one which does not lead to the many contradictions associated with the traditional view. The word “give” is related, especially in John’s gospel, to the word “sent”. God giving his Son and sending His Son are one and the same act. A thoughtful reader will readily comprehend that the one who sends is greater than the one being sent. It expresses the subordination of the one sent (given) to the one who sends (gave). When John said that God "gave" His only son he meant literally that the life of Jesus, the man, was God's gift to benefit the world. Consider the following arguments.

Luke 1:35 declares Jesus to be "born" (not transferred from heaven into the womb of Mary) as a result of the miracle power of God creating within Mary the seed of a human without physical relations with a man. Paul understood this well, and gave us the analogy of the "two Adams" in his letters to the Romans and the Corinthians, also referring to Jesus as the "indescribable gift" in 2Cor 9:15 (not all scholars agree that Paul refers to Jesus here), and the gift of grace in Rom 5:15 (the direct reference is to salvation, indirectly of Jesus since it comes by him).

This idea of the "giving" of a human being for the benefit of others is seen in Isa 9:6 where the prophet foretells of a child who would be born to a young woman (a virgin) - "unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given". Jesus makes this clear when he says unequivocally that he “did not come to be served, but to serve - and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Matt 20:28, Mark 10:45 And at the last supper in Luke 22:19 declaring the bread to be “my body, which is given for you.”

Another idea associated with the verb "gave" is the fact that Jesus in no way deserved death because he never sinned. Death came through sin, the result of the first Adams failure. The second Adam, Jesus, never sinned and therefore was not subject to death; yet God permitted or allowed (both words may be rightfully translated from didomi) his death on our behalf.

It should also be noted that Acts 13:21 uses the same construction where it says that Israel asked for a king so "God gave them Saul". Saul became God's anointed one - messiah - and was given as king for the benefit of the nation of Israel. No one would suggest that because God gave Saul that he was sent from heaven!

We could go on and on here, but let me encourage the reader to study this usage on his/her own to gain a thorough understanding.

One last point should be mentioned. Just as God gave Jesus to the world, Jesus’ wisdom, words, authority, and even his disciples, were all given to Him by God. Note especially Jesus words in John 17:2

“even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life.”

Certainly, this does not suggest that we Christians came down out of heaven! There is no valid reason to interpret the giving of God’s Son in a manner which assumes a literal, pre- existence of Jesus in heaven.

The next key word is a phrase in it's english translation, "only begotten son". This is the Greek word monogenes, a compound word from mono, meaning alone, only, unique, and genes which indicates kinship, one who is fathered, a son. So then, another way to translate monogenes is "uniquely sired human". It is imperative to know that the title “Son of God” has nothing to do with deity. Traditional orthodoxy regards Jesus as being of the same substance as the father. But this cannot be the case.

The very fact of being a son disqualifies Jesus from having the exact same substance because God is himself uncreated and eternal. This means He has no beginning. It is not a matter of later, so called, progressive revelation, it is clearly revealed in Scripture that God is an uncreated being with no equals. Therefore a son of God cannot, by mere conceptual estimation of the word son, be an eternal God! If he is a son, he must have a beginning!

This contradiction was recognized early in the history of the development of the doctrine of the trinity and the strange teaching was advanced that the Son was "eternally begotten". But this attempt to rectify a contradiction only leads to another! How can one be both eternal and begotten at the same time, since, to be begotten means to come into existence? The Bible nowhere sets forth such a mystical and confusing idea. We would do well to listen to the words of the late Eric H.H. Chang, who wrote in his book about the errors of the trinity:

“Trinitarians argue that they are "...monotheists not polytheists, because our faith is in one God in three persons. We closed our eyes (and ears) to the fact, which should have been perfectly obvious. If the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Spirit is God, and all three are co-equal and co-eternal, then the conclusion is inescapable that there are three Gods. So how did we manage to maintain that we still believe in one God? There was only one way: the definition of God had to be changed - from "Person" to a divine "Substance" (or Nature) in which the three persons share equally. The plain fact is, however, that the God of the Bible is undoubtedly a very personal Being and was never merely a "substance", no matter how wonderful that substance might be." --("The Only True God", Eric H.H. Chang, p30.)

As the Son of God, Jesus is the uniquely created human commissioned by God to fulfill His promise of redeeming the world and restoring man back to his original state as intended in the garden of Eden. It should not be overlooked that Paul clearly referred to Jesus’ activity as God working in and through him.

2 Corinthians 5:18-20 (HCSB)“Everything is from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: That is, in Christ, God was reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed the message of reconciliation to us. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, certain that God is appealing through us. We plead on Christ’s behalf, “Be reconciled to God.”

Again, it is significant that while modern Cristological terminology speaks of "God the Son", this phrase is simply not found anywhere in the pages of Scripture

Who is it that loved the world?

Under my first point I noted that the word God is used some 1300 times in the New Testament and always refers to "the Father". John 3:16 is no exception. We often refer to Jesus as being the one who loved us so much that he gave his life. While it is certainly true that Jesus loved the world we must apprehend that it was God's love for the world that caused Him to act on our behalf in commissioning Jesus. Jesus loved the world because He learned it from the Father; it is what He saw the Father doing. Note also the following Scriptures:

Romans 5:8 (NASB) But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Ephesians 2:4 (NASB) But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,...”
Colossians 3:12 (GW) As holy people whom God has chosen and loved, be sympathetic, kind, humble, gentle, and patient.
1 Thessalonians 1:4 (GW) Brothers and sisters, we never forget this because we know that God loves you and has chosen you.
2 Thessalonians 2:16 (NASB) Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace,
1 John 4:7-11 (NASB) In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
Jude 1:1 (HCSB) Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ and a brother of James: To those who are the called, loved by God the Father and kept by Jesus Christ.

The result of trinitarianism has unwittingly relegated God the Father (supposedly the 1st Person of the trinity) to a secondary place in the scheme of salvation, and elevated the Son (the 2nd Person) to the place of God Himself. This spinning and twisting of Scripture has gone on far too long and it’s time for the Church to awaken to it’s error.

Contrasting life and death

Every reasonable person must acknowledge that the word translated "perish" in no way means eternal punishment! The promise in this verse is to those who believe; ie. put their trust, in Jesus. The result of faith is the promise of life as opposed to the certainty of death. "Will not perish, but have everlasting life" draws a stark contrast between life and death. We call certain items "perishable" because unless steps are taken to preserve them they will surely waste away until there is nothing left, as though they have never been. This is what it means to perish. This is what it means to die! To relate perishing with an eternity in a place called hell which we understand as perpetual fire and torment, is not only a gross misinterpretation and misunderstanding of Scripture, it also reveals a vulgar concept of the nature and character of God!

Overwhelmingly, throughout the Bible, when the subject of judgement is addressed, it is within the context of destruction and/or extinction. Words and phrases are employed such as "ashes, return to dust, be as though they never were, smoke" and other similar concepts. Some little known versions translate this portion of John 3:16 as follows:

"may not be lost, TCNT... shall not die, Norlie... not come to destruction, BB... need not be destroyed, Klingensmith." --Complete Biblical Library Various Versions - Complete Biblical Library – John.

For some reason, many people just don't think that death is enough punishment for sin, even though it is what God Himself prescribed! (Rom 6:23, Eze 18:4,20, Heb 9:27) Apparently, the same kind of morphing of definitions that changed God from a Person to a Substance also changed the definition and scope of death. There is no room to develop this thought further here, but for more information on the subject of death and the afterlife, you can refer to my earlier blog post here and/or this excellent article here.

Conclusion

John 3:16 is the Bible’s greatest affirmation of God’s love for the world, and His plan (in condensed form) for redeeming the world! A thoughtful reading of the Scripture should reveal

that God the Father alone is God and that He is and has been intimately and personally involved in the affairs of mankind from the beginning (for God so loved the world);
that it was His love for mankind that initiated His plan for the redemption of man to Himself by commissioning a unique human being (God so loved the world that He gave);
that Jesus is not God Almighty or a second God, but the one of a kind, human son of God given with the intention that we should put our trust in him as God’s provision (He gave His only begotten son);
and finally, that the result of that trust would be to gain immortality and escape the fate of permanent death (that whosoever believes in him would not perish but have everlasting life).

Could it be any simpler, any more wonderful, than that?

The Only Begotten What?

2012-02-19T23:08:00.000-05:00

I’ve been perusing the gospel of John recently to test a theory. Trinitarians turn to John’s gospel almost exclusively to support the orthodox doctrine that Jesus is both God and man. The number of verses in John used to prove Jesus’ Deity are really not all that substantial. I suggest that there are actually many more verses in John that disprove the doctrine of the trinity! Further, those texts purported to prove the trinity, when properly understood, falter miserably. John 1:18 is an example.

John 1:18 (NASB)18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in thebosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
John 1:18 (HCSB)18 No one has ever seen God. The One and Only Son— the One who is at the Father’s side— He has revealed Him.

The different translations of this verse are the result of opposing Greek manuscripts. The HCSB, along with the KJV and others use the “textus receptus” (the received text) which reads “only begotten Son”. On the other hand, the translators of the NASB (and others - notably the NIV and ESV) favor a different, older, Greek document which has “only begotten God”. The oldest texts should typically be regarded as the most reliable, but in this case there is more to consider. For starters, how about the use of simple sense and reason.

If the documents are different it can only mean that somewhere along the way one was changed. It’s difficult to comprehend that a person, no matter how well-meaning, could wilfully alter the text of Scripture. But we know as a matter of historical fact that Biblical texts have at times been tampered with for various reasons. Most instances of textual corruption are the result of simple error in transmission and these are easily detected. Some changes however, reveal blatant partiality for a particular view. In this case the question is: was John 1:18 changed from “only begotten son” to “only begotten God” or the other way around? Since there are no older documents to compare, we can’t make that determination with absolute certainty. However, I propose that the easiest way to determine an acceptable answer is the use of sense and reason.

The word begotten in Greek is genos. It means “descendant, family”, and is from the root ginomai meaning “to be made - to come into existence”. If God, by definition, is immortal, uncreated, then how does “begotten God” make any sense? How can one be both begotten and immortal - created, and uncreated? One of the early Church fathers tried to resolve this dilemma by coming up with the term “eternal generation”. The line of reasoning here is that since the Son is eternal as the Father is eternal, the begetting must also be eternal. Wow! Try and wrap your head around that one!! So, God the Son is always being born??

The Athanasian creed declares Jesus to be begotten and not made. Here is another statement that simply makes a muddle out of lanquage! There is no difference between begotten and being made in the context of birth. The Bible is full of genealogical records. We readily understand the meaning when it says so and so begat (fathered) so and so. The begetting brought the child into existence; a baby was made. Why then should genos take on a different meaning when it comes to the birth of Jesus?

Angels are called “sons of God”, the nation of Israel is termed “God’s son”, and Christian believers are also “sons of God”. But Jesus is the unique, one of a kind, only “begotten” Son of God! What makes Him unique is that He was begotten in the womb of a young virgin girl. According to Luke 1:35, the angel of the Lord told Mary that the Holy Spirit would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her and for that reason (therefore), the child being born in her would be called “Son of God”. Did you get that? “For that reason”! Because the Spirit of God came upon Mary, the child “shall be called” the Son of God. That means that Jesus could not have been the ”Son of God” prior to his conception in Mary. Think about it! He is called Son of God because He was begotten - came into existence - by a miracle which God performed in Mary’s womb!

A second point to consider here is the use of the term God. We err when we attach 21st century meaning to a 1st century word. In Jesus day this word had a much wider meaning. When we refer to God in 21st century western culture, we almost always mean the all powerful and supreme creator. This was not the case in the age and culture of Jesus and the apostles. The word god could be used to describe anyone with authority to speak for Yahweh, such as a prophet or judge (John 10:34). In Exodus 4:16 God told Moses he would be “god” to Aaron. And, in 1 Cor 8:5 Paul makes reference to other “gods” and “lords” as secondary and inferior to the God of Christians, who is “The Father”. Additionally, Paul refers to Satan as “the ‘god’ of this present age”. With that understood, if only begotten god is in fact the correct and original reading, then certainly John’s reference to Jesus as “only begotten god” would have been understood in a secondary sense. This means Jesus could be called god because of His derived power and authority, just as in John 20:28 when Thomas confessed of Jesus, “my lord and my god”. There is no need to read into the text that He was God Almighty or an additional person of the Godhead. As God’s true and legitimate representative, he could be called god, and still be begotten!

One last argument in favor of the correct reading of John 1:18 as “only begotten Son”. The phrase in question comes from one Greek word - not just genos but monogenos. Mono means “only, one, unique” - monogenos then is the one and only descendant, unique son, only begotten son. This phrase is used only by John when referring to Jesus and we find it also in John 1:14; John 3:16 and 18, and 1 John 4:9. We do not, however, find any other occurrences of “begotten God” in Scripture, not in John’s gospel, not in any epistle. Nowhere! Not even in the oldest documents.

In my estimation these are compelling arguments that should be taken seriously by all who, like me, have accepted without question, the orthodox view of the trinity and the two natures of Christ. In their book, “The Doctrine of The Trinity: Christianity’s Self-inflicted Wound”, authors Anthony Buzzard and Charles Hunting perceptively write:

“Part of Christian growth is the willingness to admit we have been deceived, that we have not had sufficient information to make good decisions on Bibleissues.” (page 162)

When I made the leap from the trinitarian aberration to seeing what the Bible clearly teaches about God and His Son, it was, at first, both fearful and unsettling; but that quickly changed as the truth washed away the lies. I don’t profess perfect understanding of everything in the Bible but I know that my faith is stronger today than ever before because I have been enlightened to reality. I encourage and challenge readers to do your own research of this information with an open mind. What makes more sense?

God became a man but never stopped being God so He could explain Himself to man, subjected Himself to death (even though it’s impossible for God to die), then raised Himself from the dead and made Himself Lord.
- OR -
God begat a man, a chosen Son, whose life revealed God perfectly, who gave himself up to death knowing that His Father would raise Him from death and bestow upon Him the highest honor!

It’s a pretty clear choice for me! How about you?

An Inconvenient Truth

2011-12-27T22:03:00.000-05:00

Al Gore produced a documentary film a few years ago entitled "An Inconvenient Truth" in which he set out to prove as scientific fact that global warming would destroy the earth in due time unless we made some radical changes in our lifestyles. Sadly, many people bought into his idea and are now actively setting out to "save the planet". And thanks to the help of certain celebrities, and businesses seeing an opportunity to capitalize on the world's supposed dilemma, “going green” is the new standard for responsible citizenship. Now don’t misunderstand me, I am in favor of responsible stewardship of the earth, but Al Gores “inconvenient truth” has been shown to be nothing more than lies based on bad science; yet, millions around the globe continue to subscribe to the idea that man is destroying planet earth through greed and irresponsible industry.

While I do not share Mr. Gore’s notion that earth will be destroyed due to man-made global warming, there remains, I believe, an inconvenient truth! However, the truth I speak of has nothing to do with global warming! The inconvenient truth as I see it has to do with a teaching widely held by Christians around the world regarding the nature of God and Jesus. Simply put, the real inconvenient truth is that the so called orthodox Church has embraced a doctrine which has as it’s foundation Greek philosophy rather than Scripture. Despite the fact that not one shred of solid Scriptural evidence exists that the doctrine is true, multiple millions since the formulation of Church creeds in the 3rd thru 5th centuries, regard it as the most important teaching of the Christian faith. This is truly amazing when you think about it… the reformed Church has as it’s motto sola scriptura (Scripture alone) yet supports the doctrine that God exists in three distinct persons yet remains only One God, a teaching which not only defies the reasoning faculties God created us with, but cannot be found in the Bible anywhere.

The word inconvenient as used in this article means "not suiting ones needs or purposes". Some synonyms are "awkward, annoying, troublesome, bothersome". This expresses exactly the problem we have in the Church today. Volumes enough to fill libraries have been written, careers and reputations have been made, and mega churches have been built on the premise that Jesus is "God the Son", a phrase never found in Scripture. Still, men will not open their hearts and minds to the clear words of Scripture on the matter because it does not fit their preconceived ideas and long held traditions. The truth that Jesus is the “Son of God”, a title meaning God’s Chosen One, Messiah, is awkward and troublesome to mainstream Christianity. It does not suit their needs and purposes; it is indeed an “inconvenient truth”!

If you are reading this and have ever questioned the doctrine of the trinity, I ask you to consider well what you read here. One of the main Scripture verses used to support the idea that Jesus is God is John 1:1

“In the beginning was the Word,and the Word was with God,and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him
was not any thing made that was made.”

This is coupled with John 1:14 which says:

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory,
glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

Ask yourself dear reader, if it makes any sense at all that God would have John write something in the opening verses of his gospel to declare that Jesus is God the Son, a being in every way equal to God the Father, then close out his gospel with a purpose statement which reads:

“Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” –John 20:30-31 (emphasis mine)

Does it sound as though John is trying to make the point in these verses that Jesus is God? No, of course it doesn’t, because he is not! John clearly tells us that Jesus is “the Christ”. This term has as it’s equivalent the Hebrew messiah and means anointed one, or one chosen by God. In the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament) all of Israel’s kings and prophets were anointed ones; ie. messiahs. But Jesus was THE messiah, the one all other messiahs expected and prophesied about, the one who was promised by Moses and would come from the lineage of David the king (messiah) to fulfill God’s plans for Israel and the world. Also, notice the parallelism used in the above verse equating “Christ” and “Son of God”. Christ, Messiah, and Son of God are all synonymous terms referring to God’s appointed man, not a divine being equal to God.

So, again we must ask ourselves, is John 1:1 and 1:14 trying to tell us that Jesus was a divine being called the Word who pre-existed His earth life and created the world? Or, was Jesus a human being, born to a virgin girl through the line of David, by a miracle of God, who was in every way the outworking of God’s word (promise and plan) from the beginning, the one to whom God gave His word and through whom His word (His will and plan) and character would be made known? If you’re still uncertain of the answer, let Jesus tell it in His own words from the gospel of John. Consider the following Scriptures:

“but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did.” –John 8:40
”For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has told me." –John 12:49-50
“Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me.” –John 14:24
“For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me.” –John 17:8
“I have much to say about you and much to judge, but he who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from him." –John 8:26
“So Jesus said to them, 'When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me.'” –John 8:28
“I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.” –John 17:14

The New Testament is crystal clear on this matter. Jesus is the “Son of God” NOT “God the Son”. As Son of God He is “a man whom He [God] has appointed” (Acts 17:31 – also see Acts 3:20 and 10:42). Paul says of Jesus that “there is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man, Christ Jesus.” (1Tim 2:5). It is an inconvenient truth because embracing it changes everything. It changes how we interpret other Scriptures and how we understand God’s Word. It requires that men rethink their position, let go of their man-made tradition and truly embrace the clear language of the Bible and the teaching of Jesus Himself when He called the Father “the only true God” (John 17:3). It’s an inconvenient truth, but it’s a truth that will set you free from the bondage of religion and error, and the word of God will open up to you as never before.

Filled

2011-05-01T21:25:00.003-04:00

Have you ever heard one of those songs that just sticks with you… you know, a melody you just can’t get out of your head? Sure you have. We’ve all had the experience. And it’s particularly annoying when the song that’s “stuck” in your head happens to be one you don’t even like!

I play the bass guitar in the praise and worship band at our fellowship and we introduced a new song this past Sunday that I can’t stop singing. I’m OK with being “stuck” on this song because I genuinely like it. The song was written by a young man in our congregation, one of our worship leaders. The lyrics to the chorus say, “I wanna be filled, I wanna be filled, I wanna be filled with the holy spirit”. This is repeated several times in the chorus while the verses speak of surrendering our will to God.

The writer, I’m sure, understands the Holy Spirit to be a Person – the 3rd Person of the Trinity. This also was my belief until I learned the truth about the trinity. I now know that the bible teaches no such thing as God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, all being of the same essence and equality, yet not three gods, but one. Rather, the holy spirit as presented in Scripture, is God’s gift to the believer at conversion. E.W. Bullinger’s work “The Giver and His Gift” is helpful on this subject. Although a trinitarian himself, Bullinger notes the different usages of “holy spirit” throughout Scripture. Sometimes it is used to refer to God’s gift, and other times as a synonym for God Himself. The gift of holy spirit is God’s personal power at work in our lives; the imparting of divine nature, and that which gives the power we need to become like Jesus. But we must surrender to that influence at work in our hearts. I guess this is why the song has had such an impact on me these last few days. (I wake up singing it to myself… I sing it throughout the day… I’m singing it now!) I realize how often I fail at surrendering my will to His, and allowing myself to be led by the gift of God’s holy spirit within me.

Nevertheless, it is my desire to be “filled” with the holy spirit! But the real issue is: What exactly does that mean? Paul helps us understand by contrasting spirit-filling with intoxication. He says, “don’t be drunk with wine… but be filled with spirit.” (Eph 5:18) To be intoxicated with wine is to lose control of one’s faculties. A drunk person cannot be reasoned with or properly judge reality. By contrast Paul says, be filled with spirit.
I was amazed in my research to realize that I have been mislead about the real meaning of this verse, but I suppose this is also true of the majority of Christians with an orthodox background. Most bible translations capitalize the word “spirit” which automatically leads the reader to believe that Paul is referring to the Holy Spirit. Some translations even add the word “holy” to the text for clarity. And most translations add the definite article “the” so there is no mistaking that Paul refers here to the Holy Spirit. However, the original Greek text does NOT have the definite article, nor does it include the word holy, it simply says “plerousthe en pneumati” – be filled with spirit. To capitalize the word spirit and add “the Holy” is not only inaccurate, but misleading!

Further, this verse is read by many as though Paul is saying don’t be intoxicated with wine but be intoxicated with the Holy Spirit. This is just not the case at all! Paul uses methusko for wine, which means “to be drunken”; but for “filled” he uses the word pleroo, which has nothing to do with intoxication! The word is variously translated as “complete, fulfilled, finish, made full, satisfy, filled,” etc. .Consider how the word is used in the “Sermon on the Mount”. Jesus said “Blessed are you who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for you will be filled” (Matt 5:6). Also in Acts 5:3, “why has Satan filled your heart to lie…”. As in the previous two passages, the word is used figuratively here in Ephesians to mean “be fully supplied or abound with spirit; that is, live in such a way that we are satiated with, and motivated by, our new spiritual nature rather than a carnal one. Paul said the same thing in Gal 5:16 where he uses the term “walk in the spirit”. Again, there is no article in Gal 5:16, nor should spirit be capitalized. Literally, he says “walk in spirit”; ie. live your life according to the spiritual nature.

Ephesians 5:18 is also written as an imperative in the present tense indicating that it is a command to be carried out on a continuing basis rather than as a single, or occasional event. I have actually heard it taught in the past that because we are imperfect vessels, we leak, and therefore Paul tells us we need to be refilled from time to time. But this really reveals a most unfortunate and basic misunderstanding not only of the nature of man, but, but the nature of God as well. We are not empty vessels to be filled up with a substance called “spirit”, much less to be inhabited by another person; ie. the person of The Holy Spirit. Paul does not teach that we are to be intoxicated, consumed, or taken over by a force or influence outside of ourselves. Instead, we are commanded to yield the right of way to the divine nature; to leave no room in our lives for wasteful, carnal, activities. We are to become complete, fully satisfied in spiritual things.

Furthermore, it is our responsibility to do this. More than making good decisions, it is learning to hear what God is saying to us on a personal level and responding in a positive manner. This is how Jesus lived, and He is our example. Not that we can ever achieve intimacy on the same level as the uniquely begotten Son of God, but it is certainly a worthy goal.

Faulty, nonsensical, and foolish interpretations of Scripture could be avoided if those in responsible positions would take the time to be more investigative and thorough in their research and study. More attention should be paid to the volume of excellent scholarly work available today, enabling us to more accurately interpret Biblical literature. But it seems that many, while paying lip service to being “filled” with the spirit, are more interested in quirky manifestations or keeping within their traditions than exploring the truth as it is already revealed in Scripture. God help us - help me - to be a better student of the word, and a better example of what it truly means to be “filled with spirit”!

The Plain Words of Scripture

2011-01-23T16:30:00.003-05:00

"Those who accept my commandments and obey them are the ones who love me. And because they love me, my Father will love them. And I will love them and reveal myself to each of them.” --John 14:21

Have we missed this simple truth? Has it been lost in traditional Christian "theo-il-logical"doctrine? Notice the language. 'If you obey me it shows that you love me, and the One who sent me will love you, and I will love you.' Is this the language you would expect from the 2nd person of a tri-unity, as understood (or, at least taught) in trinitarian theology? The key word is "unity". If indeed there are three persons within the One God, and if there is unity among the three persons of the Godhead, does this verse even make sense? Doesn't it contradict the "unity" within the godhead?
The note in the JFB commentary on this verse reads,

"Mark the sharp line of distinction here, not only between the Divine Persons but the actings of love in Each respectively, towards true disciples." — Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

I don't suggest that JFB endorses a unitarian view of God, but it is interesting that they note the "line of distinction" between the "actings of love" as they put it, as well as the divine persons. And they are absolutely right to point out that distinction. But the complexities involved in Jesus' simple statement are immense if we are to understand him as a 2nd person of a trinity! Isn't it more sensible to simply recognize that he speaks as a person who is not God, yet acting and speaking on His behalf, as the one commissioned by Him? He is, after all, the very 'image and likeness of God', according to Hebrews 1:3. And everyone knows that an image and a likeness, no matter how exact it may be, is still a representation, and not the actual thing itself.

I urge my readers to look at the entire context of this verse (the whole chapter) and see that Jesus consistently refers to the Father as "greater" than he, as well as the One who gives him the words to speak. I think most people instinctively understand this passage, and others like it, as demonstrating the unique and close relationship Jesus had with the Father. But when we attach divinity to Jesus and insist that he is also God Almighty, we not only go beyond what is written, we also complicate beyond understanding what was given to us in plain words!

Image via Wikipedia

Now lets look at the phrase "accept my commandments and obey them". What does it mean to "accept" the commandments of Jesus? Accept is the word "echo" in the Greek. It is a verb meaning to hold, possess, to receive, to take into oneself, have ability. Indeed, it is translated variously as, has, possess, accept, keep. In other words, more than the acknowledgment of and/or rote obedience to this command or that command, it means to allow the commandment to become a part of one's thinking and action in everyday life. Observe that the only place in the NT where Jesus gives a specific 'command' is John 13:34; 15:12 and 17 where he tells his disciples to follow his example and "love one another" as he has loved us.

I think it very likely that the sense of Jesus words about obeying his commandments relate to the idea of patterning our lives after His... to love what He loves and hate what He hates... to embrace what He clearly taught as truth, as important and vital to faith, and to reject all else. This quite naturally brings to mind the place where Jesus was asked a simple, direct question by a scribe. In Mark 12:28-29 the scribe asked, "which is the greatest commandment?" Jesus' answer tells all. In this passage, Jesus first quotes the 'shema' - "Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is One". Clearly, He was speaking of His God and His Lord as One single person - God, the Father! What could be more simple and straight forward? God the Father, the Lord God Almighty, Yahweh, is One single person and Jesus recognizes and affirms that truth! It is this God, the One True God of Israel (John 17:3), that Jesus also affirms as being worthy of our complete love and devotion; ie. with all the heart, soul, and strength. The point should be obvious. If Jesus subscribed to and lived by the creed of Israel, affirming it as THE GREATEST commandment, then it is wise for us who claim to be His followers to subscribe to and live by the same creed... is it not?

My wife and I recently moved into a new home and after 3 months, we're still unpacking and getting organized. While going through some things in my office I came across an interesting document. It's something I found several years ago and printed out for distribution to a Bible class I was teaching at the time. Apparently, since I took the time to copy and print it, I thought it was a clever argument proving beyond doubt that Jesus is God. Now, however, I see the flaw in the reasoning. Take a moment to look at the document below.

Now look at it again from the very top. This supposed "trilemma", is founded upon the assertion that Jesus claimed to be God. And therein lies the problem! Jesus NEVER claimed to be God! And if Jesus never CLAIMED to be God then the entire argument is without merit and, in fact, has no practical significance.
My friends, the words of Jesus should not be ignored. To obey him is to love him, and loving him guarantees that God will love us as well! When we love Jesus, we love God because he acts and speaks on behalf of, and with the authority of God the Father. Then, says Jesus, he will reveal, or show himself to us, and both he and the Father will come to us. Understood in context, it is "on that day" that we will know that Jesus is "in" the Father and the Father "in" him, and also that we are "in" him. It is of resurrection day that Jesus speaks. Want assurance that God loves you? Want to know that you will enter into life in the coming age when Jesus returns? If we love Jesus, God will love us also, and in the same way that He raised Jesus from the grave, so He will raise us and we will then see Jesus face to face, and reign with him in the kingdom of God. What a glorious hope!

The Calf Path

2010-09-04T00:14:00.000-04:00

I came across a wonderful poem recently that speaks truth so eloquently. Perhaps, like me, this will be your first encounter with these sage words penned over a century ago. But whether you've heard it before or not, I thought it worthwhile to share on this blog. Enjoy the wise words of an obscure poet named Sam Walter Foss.

One day, through the primeval wood,
A calf walked home, as good calves should;
But made a trail all bent askew,
A crooked trail as all calves do.

Since then three hundred years have fled,
And, I infer, the calf is dead.
But still he left behind his trail,
And thereby hangs my moral tale.

The trail was taken up next day
By a lone dog that passed that way;
And then a wise bell-wether sheep
Pursued the trail o'er vale and steep,
And drew the flock behind him, too,
As good bell-wethers always do.
And from that day, o'er hill and glade,
Through those old woods a path was made.

And many men wound in and out,
And dodged, and turned, and bent about
And uttered words of righteous wrath
Because 'twas such a crooked path.
But still they followed - do not laugh -
The first migration of that calf,
And through this winding wood-way stalked,
Because he wobbled when he walked.

This forest path became a lane,
That bent, and turned, and turned again;
This crooked lane became a road,
Where many a poor horse with his load
Toiled on beneath the burning sun,
And traveled some three miles in one.
And thus a century and a half
They trod the footsteps of that calf.

The years passed on in swiftness fleet,
The road became a village street;
And this, before men were aware,
A city's crowded thoroughfare;
And soon the central street was this
Of a renowned metropolis;
And men two centuries and a half
Trod in the footsteps of that calf.

Each day a hundred thousand rout
Followed the zigzag calf about;
And o'er his crooked journey went
The traffic of a continent.
A hundred thousand men were led
By one calf near three centuries dead.
They followed still his crooked way,
And lost one hundred years a day;
For thus such reverence is lent
To well-established precedent.

A moral lesson this might teach,
Were I ordained and called to preach;
For men are prone to go it blind
Along the calf-paths of the mind,

And work away from sun to sun
To do what other men have done.
They follow in the beaten track,
And out and in, and forth and back,

And still their devious course pursue,
To keep the path that others do.
They keep the path a sacred groove,
Along which all their lives they move.
But how the wise old wood-gods laugh,
Who saw the first primeval calf?
Ah! Many things this tale might teach -
But I am not ordained to preach.

For those who may be interested, this poem is found in the book "Pagan Christanity?" by Frank Viola and George Barna. This is a must read for anyone who has questions about the established orthodox Church, as it exists today. The book does not address doctrinal issues, but rather examines various practices common to many church denomiations today. This small work (only 269 pages) is packed with eye-opening, documented fact, and historical information of which most people have no awareness. It simply asks the question, "have we really been doing it by the book?"

If you value truth you'll appreciate this book. Whether you agree with all the author's conclusions or not, the facts cannot be disputed. This is not about bashing the Church. I love the Church that is the body of Christ, but the institution it has become is a far cry from the organism it is meant to be!

We Will Rise!

2010-08-12T00:33:00.007-04:00

"If a man dies, will he live again? All the days of my struggle
I will wait Until my change comes." --Job 14:14 (NASB)

"Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who
are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth;
those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life,
those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment."
-- John 5:28-29 (NASB)

It's rather odd, I think, that everyone seems to want to go to heaven, but no one really wants to die. Yet, at funerals, death is tauted as the doorway to life. It is said of the dead that they are "in a better place now", or they've "gone to their reward". I even heard it said once that this certain person was "enjoying life more than ever."

I understand that all this may, in fact, serve to provide comfort to the bereaved. I do not wish for those who are dealing with the death of a loved one to go without comfort, but there is a problem here if we are to call ourselves Bible believing Christians. Does the Bible actually teach life after death in the way it is understood today in popular Christian culture? As Christians, we are to find comfort in truth, are we not? In 1 Thess 4:13-18 the apostle Paul addresses this very issue. Apparently there were those in Thessalonica who were confused about what would happen to those who were already dead when Christ returned. Paul clearly pointed them to the resurrection saying "the dead in Christ will rise first". The remainder of the verse reads "then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord". Those who subscribe to a pre-tribulation rapture of the Church point to this verse for support (misguided support, in my opinion). But one thing is certain, Paul tells us plainly here when Christians will be with the Lord, and it is not at the time of death. Notice the phrase "so we will always be with the Lord". The word "so" ("thus" in some translations) means "in this way" or "by this means". How will we be with the Lord? It will be either by resurrection or by rapture, but in either event, it will not happen until the appearing of Jesus from heaven! Until then, the dead must sleep.

And so we must ask "what is the source of these ideas which are so prevalent in the Church today, such as souls leaving the body and going to heaven at death; ideas in which so many seem to find comfort? The answer is Greek philosophy - pagan thought - which infiltrated the Church very early. For Plato and other Greek philosophers, the soul was imprisoned in the body and death was the means of the souls' escape. Think about it... what is evident here is that dead persons who are supposedly in heaven now, have no bodies!! Yet, the Bible is very clear on this subject: new bodies are obtained via the resurrection, and the resurrection of the dead will happen only at Jesus' appearing!

Resurrection, THE major tenet of the Christian faith, has taken second place to death in our modern version of orthodox Christianity. Paul clearly tells us that our faith hangs on the fact that Jesus was truly raised up from the state of being actually dead. In fact, if Jesus didn't rise, says Paul, "our faith is in vain" (1Cor
15:14,17), and the dead in Christ have truly perished (ie. there is no hope for them beyond the grave - (1Cor 15:18)). If the souls of dead Christians were now in heaven, verse 18 would not be true, would it? It is the fact of Jesus' resurrection, who is the firstfruits of those that sleep (1Cor 15:20), that guarantees the resurrection of all the dead in Christ when He appears again (1Cor 15:21-23). This is the blessed hope of the believer! (Tit 2:13 ( KJV)) Resurrection means coming back to life after being dead, not merely getting a new body!

Image via Wikipedia

Headstone in a small family cemetery in Northern Missouri

Churches today give lip service to resurrection as something that will occur, because it is known to be taught in the Scriptures. But in fact, the present belief system of souls going to heaven at the time of death, is not only a contradiction of resurrection, it is an erosion of Christianity's central truth, the resurrection of the believer! In the Church's current system, only the body is dead while the souls of the dead are alive in the presence of God with no need of a body. It would be constructive for Christians to ask themselves, if dead persons are living what point is there to the resurrection? If the dead are more alive than ever; if they've gone to their reward; if they really are in a better place, if they are whole and at peace in God's presence, what possible good and what reasonable purpose would it serve to once again have a body, albeit an immortal one? Further, why would Paul refer to death as an enemy? This is the question men like John Wycliffe, and Martin Luther asked, who believed in the biblical doctrine of the sleep of the dead awaiting resurrection.

But long before Wycliffe and Luther, Justin Martyr, an early Church Father of the 1st century, wrote about his "orthodox" belief. Below is a reprint of the entire dialog from which other author's have quoted. To be clear, we do not recognize Justin Martyr as being of equal authority to Scripture, but his views do show that early Christian thinkers had a very different interpretation of the Scripture, than is widely taught today, which necessarily affected their perspective on the issues of life and death.

THE OPINION OF JUSTIN WITH REGARD TO THE
REIGN OF A THOUSAND YEARS. SEVERAL
CATHOLICS REJECT IT

And Trypho to this replied, “I remarked to you sir, that you are
very anxious to be safe in all respects, since you cling to the
Scriptures. But tell me, do you really admit that this place,
Jerusalem, shall be rebuilt; and do you expect your people to
be gathered together, and made joyful with Christ and the
patriarchs, and the prophets, both the men of our nation, and
other proselytes who joined them before your Christ came?
or have you given way, and admitted this in order to have the
appearance of worsting us in the controversies?”

Then I answered, “I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as
to say one thing and think another. I admitted to you formerly,
that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that
such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the
other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the
pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.
Moreover, I pointed out to you that some who are called
Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach
doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical,
and foolish. But that you may know that I do not say this
before you alone, I shall draw up a statement, so far as I
can, of all the arguments which have passed between us;
in which I shall record myself as admitting the very same
things which I admit to you. For I choose to follow not men
or men’s doctrines, but God and the doctrines [delivered]
by Him. For if you have fallen in with some who are
called Christians, but who do not admit this [truth],
and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and
the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say
there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their
souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not
imagine that they are Christians, even as one, if he
would rightly consider it, would not admit that the Sad-
ducees, or similar sects of Genistae, Meristaeans, Gali-
laeans, Hellenists, Pharisees, Baptists, are Jews (do
not hear me impatiently when I tell you what I think), but
are [only] called Jews and children of Abraham, worship-
ping God with the lips, as God Himself declared, but the
heart was far from Him. But I and others, who are right-
minded Christians on all points, are assured that there
will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years
in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and
enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others
declare.

Notice that Justin regards himself as being "right-minded" (orthodox) but allows for others who are "true christians" (orthodox) to "think otherwise" regarding the literal 1000 year reign of Christ. But when it comes to souls going to heaven when they die, it is, in Justin's view, tantamount to denying the resurrection. Have Christians today unwittingly taken the power out of the Biblical doctrine of the resurrection from the dead by subscribing to the idea that we have immortal souls which go either to heaven or hell at the time of death? This, it seems to me, is a serious issue, among others, which should be re-examined by honest and thoughtful Christians desiring to know and practice truth and the Christianity of the first Church!

Both Jesus and Paul believed and taught that the dead are dead. The early Church believed and taught this truth as well, and we would do well to follow their lead. It is most unfortunate that Greek, pagan, philosophy has so infiltrated Christian thinking, not only with regard to death and resurrection, but many other unbiblical beliefs held by modern Christianity. It would behoove every sincere Christian to study the Scriptures regarding death and resurrection, the soul of man, and heaven and hell. Study as if you knew nothing at all about Bible doctrine and I assert that you will find something very different from what is commonly taught in Churches today.