Gnosticism - More Than A Present Threat (Re-Blog)

I recently came across an article having to do with the dangers of Gnostic thought which has infiltrated some Christian teaching. This, among other things, has been a topic of discussion with me and some of my brothers as we have gathered together for fellowship. Although an old religion, it has had a bit of a revival in recent years, especially with the discovery of the Nag Hammadi scrolls. Just "google" gnosticism and a number of sites will come up in the results, featuring current gnostic teachers. The basic idea of Gnosticism (or, those who have knowledge) is that only spirit is good, whereas the physical world is bad - including the body. Hence, the platonic idea of the soul being "freed" from the prison of the body upon death. But there are many facets to this early mix of philosophy and eastern mystic religion, some of which sadly parallels certain popular ideas within Christianity today. 

The following is a reproduction of the article I read from the blog source, focusonthekingdommagazine.org. I hop you will find it to be informative and thought provoking. Enjoy.

"In a recent article (Discernment, May/June 1999, PO Box 129, Lapeer, MI 48446), a writer remarks on the pronounced dangers of a Gnostic approach to salvation and Scripture, currently espoused in some “charismatic” circles. The author’s point is that those who rely heavily on “experience” give themselves over to subjectivity and personal feeling uncontrolled by the text of Scripture.They have faith in their own experience rather that in the promises of God. By “Gnostic” is meant a form of popular religion which originated in New Testament times and probably before. Some “Gnostics” claimed to be Christians andother Christians who opposed them saw the dangers of their allegorical, and often philosophical, approach to the Bible. Gnosticism was a blend of popular spirituality, neo-Platonism and eastern mysticism, producing an attractive “soup” designed to satisfy human spiritualhunger. “Christian” Gnostics simply appended the name of Jesus and Christ to their variety of essentially pagan teachings, and the result seemed to the less well-instructed to be close to the faith of the New Testament. Bible writers often fought the counterfeiting techniques of the Gnostics. 

The author, John Marston, who reflects on current Gnostic tendencies (and there are several prominent writers who also see parallels in contemporary Christianity), points out that one Gnostic characteristic is the failure to take plain words at their face value. This tendency has caused the rift which divides the amillennial Christian from the premillennial Christian. There is much truth in this observation. The literal and natural reading of the words of the Bible is the first choice for the wise student. For example, the noun “resurrection” in the New Testament is found some 40 times to mean the resurrection of the literally dead to life, either in the case of Jesus (the only one yet to have been resurrected) or of the faithful of all ages at the return of Jesus to the earth (see I Cor. 15:23). It would therefore be a major mistake of interpretation to decide that in Revelation 20:5 the noun resurrection cannot mean the raising of the literally dead to life again. Yet this is the grave weakness of amillennialism. 

Amillennialism (readers should not be daunted at all by the technical terms: the ideas involved are very simple) proposes that Satan has already been “bound so that he cannot deceive the nations any longer” (Rev. 20:3) and that the resurrection of the dead mentioned in Revelation 20:5 means the figurative resurrection of a person not literally dead, but dead in sin. Such“resurrection,” amillennialism teaches, happens to the individual when he or she is converted. Premillennialism says no. Resurrection, the noun, should mean what it means in some 40 other passages — the actual coming to life of adead person who has died literally. 

If any of our readers is in doubt on this point, he should consult not only the normal meaning of the noun “resurrection” (which never refers to conversion), but the immediate context in Revelation 20:1-6. Here we read plain words, crystal clear information: “Those persons who had been beheaded came to life…This is the first resurrection.” It would be an amazing misunderstanding to argue that “the coming to life” again of “those who had been beheaded” means anything other than what it says: The literally dead came back to life. Such is the strong advantage of the premillennial understanding of this passage. It takes words at their normal, natural face value. 

Gnostic tendencies are found today also in the widely held belief that man isa bipartite creature with body and immortal soul and that his “soul” departs consciously to heaven or hell at the moment of death. Thus we hear often thatso and so has “gone home to be with Jesus in heaven.” Pleasant as such a viewmay seem, it has no biblical basis. If we want to grasp the biblical view of life after death, I Thessalonians 4 is among many passages which lays it out clearly. Having described how Jesus “died and rose again,” Paul says that dead Christians will rise from death in the future. When Christ returns, Paultaught, the dead, who he says are now asleep, will be woken up from sleep (the word “raised” is the same in Greek as the word “awaken”), caught up to meet the Lord in the air and “thus we shall come to be always with the Lord.” 

Did you catch that? “Thus we shall always be with the Lord.” In this manner —by this process of being woken up at the future coming of Jesus — we shall come into the presence of Christ. By no other means. Pause and reflect. If itis possible to be “with Christ” before the resurrection, Paul would have beenwrong to say “By this means we shall be with the Lord forever.” The words of Paul, coupled with the words of Jesus in John 5:28, 29and Daniel in 12:2, tell us with complete clarity that the dead are asleep until the resurrection day. When they are raised from death (awoken from the sleep of death) they will then come into the presence of Christ and be with him forever. By resurrection, alone, and not by survival as an “immortal spirit,” we will be ushered into Christ’s presence — for the first time, at the resurrection when Jesus comes back to inaugurate his Kingdom on earth (Matt. 5:5; Rev. 5:10). 

Gnostic tendencies affected other major popular Christian doctrines. Origen (died 254 AD) was a philosophically-minded theologian whose allegorical treatment of the Bible caused him to hunt for hidden, so called “spiritual” meanings which were merely the invention of his own imagination. 

Many earnest believers are quite unaware that it was the teaching of the mystically-minded Origen about the “eternal begetting of the Son” which helped to develop the now famous teaching that Jesus is coequal and coeternal with the Father. We strongly urge that Bible students in search of saving Truth examine the roots of some of their central historic teachings. Do they really come from the Bible, or rather from the strong philosophical and Gnostic tendencies which invaded the church soon after the death of the Apostles? Paul warned us, but have we heeded? (Acts 20:28-31; II Tim 4:1ff.)" 

The Hebrew Background to the New Testament

I thought the following reproduction of a few paragraph's' from Anthony
Buzzard's booklet "Who Is Jesus?" would be helpful. One of the pitfall's of the average believer today is the failure of current Christianity to understand the Hebrew context of Jesus and His message. Indeed, it would appear that this disconnect happened centuries ago in the time when the creeds of Christianity were formulated. The following is a useful summary of the early Church's understanding of Hebrew Scripture concerning Jesus.

It will be useful by way of summary and to orient ourselves to the thought world of the authors of the New Testament to lay out the principal passages of the Hebrew Scriptures from which they derived their unified understanding of the person of Christ. Nowhere can it be shown that the Messiah was to be an uncreated being, a fact which should cause us to look outside the Bible for the source of such a revolutionary concept.

The original purpose for man, made in the image and glory of God, was to exercise dominion over the earth (Gen 1:26; Psa 8). That ideal is never lost beyond our recovery for the Psalmist speaks of the “glory” with which man has been (potentially) crowned so that “all things are to be subjected under his feet” (Psa 8:5, 6). As the divine plan unfolds it becomes clear that the promised “seed of the woman” who is to reverse the disaster caused by Satan (Gen 3:15) will be a descendant of David (2 Sam. 7:13-16). He will call God his Father (2 Sam. 7:14) and be appointed as God’s Son, the Messiah, to whom God entrusts rulership of the earth (Psa 2). Prior to taking up his royal office, however, the Messiah is to sit at the right hand of the Father and bear the title “Lord” (Psa 110:1).

As Son of Man, representative man, he will take his place in heaven prior to receiving from God authority to administer a universal empire (Dan 2:44; 7:14; Acts 3:20, 21). Having at his first coming suffered for the sins of the people (Isa 53; Psa 22), he is to come again as God’s firstborn, the ruler of the kings of the earth (Psa 89:27), foreshadowed by David who was also chosen from the people (Psa 89:19, 20).

As the second Moses, the Messiah was to arise in Israel (Deut 18:18), deriving his divine Sonship from a supernatural birth from a virgin (Isa 7:14; Luke 1:35), and being confirmed as God’s Son through his resurrection from the dead (Rom 1:4). As High Priest, the Messiah now serves his people from heaven (Heb 8:1) and awaits the time of the restoration of all things (Acts 3:21), when he is destined to be reintroduced into the earth as King of Kings, the divine figure of Psalm 45 (Heb 1:6-8). At that time, in the new age of the Kingdom, he will rule with his disciples (Matt 19:28; Luke 22:28-30; 1 Cor 6:2; 2 Tim 2:12; Rev 2:26; 3:21; 20:4). As Adam heads the original creation of human beings on earth, so Jesus is the created Head of the New Order of humanity, in whom the ideals of the human race will be fulfilled (Heb 2:7).

Within this Messianic framework the person and work of Jesus can be explained in terms understood by the apostles. Their purpose even when presenting the most “advanced” Christology is to proclaim belief in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God (John 20:31), who is the center of God’s whole purpose in history (John 1:14). Though Jesus is obviously coordinated in a most intimate way with his Father, the latter remains the “only true God” of biblical monotheism (John 17:3). Jesus thus represents the presence of the one God, his Father. In the man Jesus, Immanuel, the one God is present with us (John 14:9).

-- Who Is Jesus?, pages 25&26, by Anthony Buzzard

Another Undeniable Proof

T

"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" (1 Cor 8:6) [1]  _New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995. LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

It is interesting that, in defense of the Trinity, this verse is sometimes offerered as a proof. Yet, it proves no such thing, because it makes a clear distinction between God the Father, and Jesus Christ the Lord. Also, there is no  mention of the Holy Spirit here, so how can it be said to support a doctrine of "three in one"? At best, it might be a proof text for a Binity, but certainly not a Trinity!

But it appears much more likely that Paul knew nothing at all of a Trinity, or a Binity. Rather, Paul makes reference here of one, single, unitary God, and one Lord, Messiah. In verses 4 and 5, Paul's language is clear. He speaks of only One God (v4); and though there be many lords (v5), yet for us (Christians) there is only one Lord Messiah (Christ), and that is Jesus.

This is so clear, I don't know how it can be mistaken, or misconstrued to mean that the one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, is One God but two co-equal Persons of the same essence within the one godhead. Keep in mind that it is not Paul's objective here to make a theological statement about the nature of God; he is not even making a philosophical observation about the nature of God. What Paul is doing is drawing attention to the fact that although pagans may recognize many gods and many lords, real or imagined, Christians worship the One True God and follow the one Lord, Messiah Jesus. The "so called" gods of the pagans, are no gods at all. In other words, although the world may worship many different gods, for the Christian there is only one God, and He is the Father. Although the world may recognize many lords (masters), for the Christian there is only one lord, the one sent by God, and that is Jesus Christ.

God is directly referred to as "the Father" about 70 times in the New Testament, and many more indirect references are made; but Jesus is never called God with the correlative "Son"; ie. God, the Son. Jesus is, of course, the Son of God, and the Christ (Messiah), neither of which is the same as God. 

Albert Barnes, a Trinitarian, acknowledges the following regarding "One God, the Father" in 1 Cor 8:6:

The word “Father” here is not used as applicable to the first person of the Trinity, as distinguished from the second, but is applied to God as God; not as the Father in contradistinction from the Son, but to the divine nature as such, without reference to that distinction - the Father as distinguished from his offspring, the works that owe their origin to him. 

This is manifest: (1) Because the apostle does not use the correlative term” Son” when he comes to speak of the “one Lord Jesus Christ;” and, (2) Because the scope of the passage requires it. The apostle speaks of God, of the divine nature, the one infinitely holy Being, as sustaining the relation of Father “to his creatures.” He produced them, He provides for them. He protects them, as a father does his children. He regards their welfare; pities them in their sorrows; sustains them in trial; shows himself to be their friend. The name “Father” is thus given frequently to God, as applicable to the one God, the divine Being; Psa 103:13; Jer 31:9; Mal 1:6; Mal 2:10; Mat 6:9; Luk 11:2, etc. __Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible, Albert Barnes (1798-1870) (emphasis mine)

These are valid points with which I heartily concur. However, Barnes then goes on to suggest that at other places in Scripture the term "Father" does mean the 2nd person in the Trinity as suggested by the following Scriptures: Luk 10:22; Luk 22:42; Jn 1:18; Jn 3:35; Jn 5:19-23, Jn 5:26, Jn 5:30, Jn 5:36; Heb 1:5; 2Pe 1:17, etc. This distinction is made, in Barnes opinion, because of the correlative use of the term "Son". But in review, I see no warrant for making this distinction other than a personal bias of keeping up the tradition of the Trinity. We do not question whether Jesus is the Son, only what it means to be the Son.

One of the most quoted Old Testament Scriptures found in the New Testament is Psalm 110:1

"The LORD says to my Lord, sit at My right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."

The word LORD, in all capital letters, is not a true translation of the Hebrew text. It is a well known fact 

among scholars that in order to preserve the holiness of God's name, and because of their literal adherence to the command about taking God's Name in vain, scribes replaced the sacred Name with four letters - JHVH or YHWH - known as the tetragrammaton. These four letters are representative of God's actual Name, Jehovah, or Yahweh.

Remember, this is a Psalm of David; it is David speaking here, in the Spirit. The LORD (Yahweh, Almighty God), speaks to someone that David calls "my Lord". God is not speaking to Himself. This is a clear reference to Messiah. Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Commentary says of the phrase "to my Lord"

According to Jesus’ interpretation of the passage (Matt. 22:41-45; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44), this is a reference to the Son of God in heaven in the presence of the Father. David himself confesses the Son to be his Lord, that is, his master or sovereign. --Radmacher, E. D., Allen, R. B., & House, H. W. (1999). Nelson's new illustrated Bible commentary (Ps 110:1). Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers.

The point in all this is to say that Paul surely understood Jesus to be the human Lord, Messiah, and in no way, God Almighty. This, in fact, is what he argued for with all who would listen (Acts 18:5; 18:28). The word "Lord" is used here in the sense of governor, master, or king. The idea is that Christians acknowledge only one ruler over their lives, the one who God sent to be the Christ. Whether, as some suggest, Lord does not necessarily indicate an inferior status than God, is irrelevant. There is no question that God "gave" all authority to Jesus, both in heaven and in earth (Mat 28:18). What we must recognize is that the titles Lord and Christ do not indicate shared essence; ie. to call Jesus Lord or Christ is not the same as saying he is true God (as the creed says, "very God of very God").

Honestly, I don't think these arguments would even be necessary if a mystical, incomprehensible, doctrine such as the Trinity had not been introduced and subsequently embraced by the Christian Church many years ago. To me, a simple reading of the text, and the very fact that Paul makes a distinction between the One God and Father, and the one Lord, Jesus Christ, is undeniable proof that he does not recognize a Trinity. Certainly, he could have worded his letter differently, had he intended to suggest anything other than One, singular Person God, and one Lord who is His Messiah!

_______ 

[1] New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995. LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

a Deut 4:35, 39; 6:4; Is 46:9; Jer 10:6, 7; 1 Cor 8:4

b Mal 2:10; Eph 4:6

c Rom 11:36

d John 13:13; 1 Cor 1:2; Eph 4:5; 1 Tim 2:5

e Col 1:16

A Critical Easter

As I write this post, it is the evening of Easter Sunday, 2010. I've been reflecting today on the state of Christianity, at least,within the circles I am familiar with, and am truly amazed at how far off the mark we seem to have gotten on so many issues! I take no pleasure in being critical, but it's impossible not to be when the errors against Biblical truth are so blatant. And yet, I don't think most people even consider that their understanding of the faith is, in fact, unbiblical in many respects.

I wrote a post back in December regarding the fallacy of the incarnation and the reality of the resurrection. You can read it all here. But to revisit briefly, it is my assertion that the Church has gotten it's priorities "out of whack" with regard to holiday celebrations. We place entirely too much emphasis on Christmas, and not nearly enough on Easter! The fact is, even a brief survey of the New Testament reveals that little is said regarding Jesus' birth, but his death and resurrection are key themes throughout. In fact, if you remove the birth of Christ from the New Testament, you remove only a couple of chapters from Matthew and Luke's gospel. If you remove the resurrection from the New Testament, you will have nothing left to speak of! So, why is it that no one seems to recognize this, or call it into question?

What's worse, we say we base our faith on the the Bible, the Word of God, and yet so little of what we have come to accept as Bible truth, actually comes from the pages of the Bible itself. 

The choir at my church sang a song today which elicited a very emotional response from the congregation. It was beautiful, musically speaking, but left a lot to be desired in terms of sound doctrinal content. The chorus went something like this:

More than the crown, more than the throne,

More than the heavens, that He called home

Jesus left it all, because He loved us more.

The verses went on to proclaim, in wonderment, how Jesus left the safety of heaven to navigate the dangers of the earth; though He was already a king, He left it all behind to become a pauper,  because he loved us more. A very moving premise, leaving one with a sense of "mystery" but not one shred of Scriptural evidence to back it up! The song merely borrows from the doctrine of "incarnation" and never once mentions resurrection. How sad. How misguided. How totally off the mark of the message of Easter.

But that isn't the end of it. I wish it were the only part of the service for which I was critical. Throughout the entire sermon the pastor made reference upon reference to Jesus being God, of God coming to die, of God not wanting us to fear Him so He sent Jesus who said "If you've seen me you've seen the Father." As if Jesus literally meant that they were physically looking upon the Father when they saw him.

When one becomes aware of error it stands out like a big red zit on the end of ones nose. You just can't miss it! I don't claim to know it all; I certainly have much to learn. But what I have come to realize, beyond a shadow of doubt, is this: The Scriptures nowhere speak of Jesus leaving heaven to come to earth, they do not refer to Jesus as God with a capital "G", Jesus nowhere calls himself God, and Jesus did not raise himself from the dead! Jesus affirmed that there is only One God (John 5:44; 17:3), and that He was his God (John 20:17), and the Scriptures clearly teach that God raised Jesus from the dead (Acts 3:15; Romans 10:9).

The best part of the service was the reading of the Scriptures regarding resurrection. How disappointing that almost everything that followed seemed to disregard and/or contradict what the Scriptures said! It's time for the Church to wake up.

Three Undeniable Proofs

The Scriptures are literally full of texts which declare God as the Father, and the Only God. Nothing changed in the New Testament regarding the revealed nature of God, as Father and as Almighty. Nevertheless, the centuries old doctrine of the Holy Trinity has turned plain language and simple, direct, concepts into an unintelligible mystery. I have a solution to that problem... ditch the unbiblical doctrine and replace it with the clear teaching of Scripture! 

It's time for another reformation! 

There are many undeniable proofs throughout the Bible, but in this article I want to highlight only three  texts that reasonably prove Jesus is NOT God, sharing essence in a multiple Godhead, or equal with God in any way. They are John 17:3, Matt 16:16 , and Ephesians 1:17

 Undeniable Proof #1

John 17:3

"This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." 

Any person can read this text and clearly see that Jesus delineates Himself from "the One True God". In order to hold to the doctrine of the Trinity, one must explain away Jesus' own words. Remember, it is Jesus who said this; the same Jesus all Christians claim to be Lord and Master!

In order to attain eternal life, one must know the only true God, and the one that God sent (commissioned). The "True God" is obviously a reference to "the Father" to whom Jesus prayed. The Father is the only true God! All verses following must be interpreted within the context of Jesus declaration about the identity of the true God. For example, look at the continuation of Jesus prayer in verse five.

 "And now, glorify Me together with Yourself, Father, with the glory which I had with You before the world was."

There are several ways to understand this verse. First, if we take it literally, Jesus pre-existed his earthly life and shared glory with God. He is now requesting to have that glory again and to return to his pre-existent state. This is apparently how trinitarians interpret what Jesus is saying here. But even if it is true, we must deal with his statement about the only true God. If the Father is the "true" God, then Jesus is not... there cannot be two "true" Gods! There is no co-equality here, as the doctrine of the trinity teaches. 

In addition, it may be argued that if Jesus gave up glory in order to become a man, then he couldn't have been God during that time. This plays into the theory of "kenosis" from Phil 2:7 where it says he "emptied" himself. But the problem with kenotic theory is that Jesus was always conscious of His Godhood, according to the trinity doctrine. Giving up glory he had, would be tantamount to giving up divinity.

Another problem with this understanding is that asking God to restore glory which He previously had, makes him totally cognizant of His Deity at this time, when he doesn't seem to remember that he is fully God at other times. This "sporadic" awareness of Deity does not seem to be consistent with a divine being... and certainly not consistent with humanity. At least, I've never had the experience of realizing that I'm actually God! What about you?

There is, of course, another way to interpret this verse while adhering to Jesus statement about the One True God, and staying in agreement with his complete humanity, as well as other Biblical texts. First, look at 2Tim 1:9... 

"who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began..." 

Paul says that we received grace according to His purpose in Christ BEFORE time began. Notice the past tense of the verbs. How could we be called before we existed in time? And further, no one suggests that we were around before time to receive His grace! It's obvious, and everyone acknowledges, that Paul refers to God's plan from before time. Also, in Eph 1:4 Paul makes a similar reference. How is it possible for us to have been chosen before the foundation of the world? Only in God's mind, His eternal plan!

Given these comparisons, and removing any bias towards a trinitarian theology, can we really prove that Jesus was Deity from John 17:5? Jesus was also in God's mind, His plan, before time, and that is precisely how we should understand John 1:1. The word - the plan - was with God in the beginning, but it did not become Jesus until He was born in Mary. 


What Jesus is asking here is for the Father to fulfill Scripture concerning the glory that was promised to the Messiah; Jesus' glory was in God's mind before time and He prays that it now be made manifest. I believe this to be an honest assessment of the text without twisting or stretching it in any way.


Finally, we should not miss the import of 1Pet 1:20-21. 

"He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you 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." 

I really don't think I have to say anything more, but in case you missed it, 

• to be "foreknown" is not the same as pre-existing!
• God "gave" him glory, He didn't return it.
• God's purpose in Jesus is that our "faith and hope are in God"  

Jesus himself is not the True God, but the one who was "sent" (commissioned) by the True God, to reveal the True God (17:3). Just read through the remainder of John 17 and see how Jesus spoke the words that God gave him (17:8,14); that God has given Jesus His Name (17:11,12); that we are not of the world just like Jesus is not of the world (17:14,16); that we are sent as he was sent (17:18); that we may be one even as Jesus and the Father are one, and that they (Jesus and the Father) may be in us even as Jesus is in the Father and the Father in Jesus (17:21-23). 

Undeniable Proof #2

Matt 16:16

 "Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 

This confession is found also in Mark and Luke (Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20), but here, in Matthew,s account, Jesus responds with a telling statement. He says: "Blessed are you...for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father..." (Matt 16:17). It is amazing to me how often I've heard people use this verse to make their claim that Jesus admitted to being God; yet, he makes no such claim for himself here, or anywhere else for that matter! He claims only that Simon's assessment of his identity is "revealed" by the Father and that he (Simon) is "blessed" for his spiritually attuned judgment. This means only that Peter recognized Jesus as God's Messiah for which Israel had long been waiting. Luke's use of the term "Christ of God" (Luke 9:20) qualifies Matthew's "Son of the living God". 

"Son of God" is a title of agency in the Bible, as well as the whole of the Greek-Roman world. Israel is called "the son of God", angels are called "sons of God", and even Christians are "sons". What we all have in common is that we "represent" God in some way. Angels were sent to relay God's messages and do His bidding, Israel is the nation God used to bring Messiah to the world, and Christians are the means by which the gospel is to be preached to the world. We are, in that sense, agents of God. Even the Roman Caesar's were called sons of God because they supposedly spoke on behalf of their gods. I don't mean to put Christ on the same level as angels, and certainly not equate him with a Roman emperor, but I'm simply making the point that the term "son of God" refers to agency.


Jesus Christ, the Messiah, is the True God's authorized Agent - His Vice Regent. He was given this title at birth, as announced by the angel Gabriel (Luke 1:35), as a direct result of the miraculous begetting by the power of God. To be "Son of God" in the Bible means you are not God! In the same way, being my father's son means that I am not my father.


There are many other things we could discuss here. For example, in the trinity doctrine the Father, Son, and Spirit share "essence" which supposedly reconciles the validity of three person's yet only one God. However, the idea of "essence" uniting more than one person into one being breaks down upon further scrutiny. My father and I share the same essence, and so do my brothers ;ie. we are all human. But we are not one human, we are still three separate persons - three separate beings.

The bottom line is this: Jesus did not correct, adjust, or try to tweak Peter's answer in any way. If Jesus was "God the Son", as the trinitarian doctrine has it, this would have been the perfect opportunity for Jesus to make it clear. Wouldn't it have been more honest, more forthright, to say "well Peter, you're partly right, but you have much to learn yet." What nails this truth down for me is that Jesus commends Peter, calls him "blessed", and acknowledges that God the Father "revealed" this to him! What was revealed? Not that Jesus was the 2nd person in a triune God, but that Jesus is the Christ of God; ie. Son of God.


Jesus is the Messiah, and I can find no indication anywhere in the Bible denoting that Israel expected the Messiah to be a God-Man. The Son of God is not the same as God the Son, which is a term nowhere found in Scripture. This is undeniable proof for me.

Undeniable Proof #3

Ephesians 1:17

"that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him"

In trinitarian teaching, Jesus is called Lord because he is equated with the Lord God of the Old Testament. Since there is only one God who is called The LORD, and since there is only one Lord Jesus Christ, He must be God. But apparently Paul did not understand this reasoning because he calls the Father of glory, "the God of our Lord Jesus Christ". Notice that it is not just "Father" of our Lord Jesus, but THE GOD (ho theos in the Greek)! How is it that God can have a God? And this is not an isolated text. (Compare Eph 1:3). Even Jesus himself recognizes the Father as his God according to the following Scriptures:

"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?" (Matt 27:46)

And after his resurrection, having been immortalized with a glorious new body.

"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.'" (John 20:17)

And again, many years after having ascended into heaven, he still holds to the same understanding. 

"Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God." (Rev 3:2)

'He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it anymore; and I will write on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name." (Rev 3:12)

Dear readers, I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, don't you? If it is, in fact, God's word, written by men who were moved by God to record His thoughts, then we must take it seriously - and I do. The plain, unavoidable, fact is that Jesus nowhere claims the designation "God" for himself, but everywhere - even after his resurrection and ascension into heaven - submits himself to, and acknowledges that he himself has a God. Certainly, if Paul believed, and taught his converts, that Jesus was the 2nd person of a trinity, he would have been more careful in how he worded his prayer. 

These are, in my mind, undeniable proofs that the trinity is not a sound Biblical doctrine. Instead, it is inspired by man, handed down, and accepted virtually without question by the majority, even in the face of clear texts such as we have presented in this article.

I encourage you to research these facts for yourself. There is great freedom and joy in discovering truth!

One of Us

"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 in the past couple of years since coming to the truth 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 His Deity co-existing with His humanity because doing so inevitably led to questions I couldn't answer. Since I couldn't answer the questions without denying Christ (at least, that was my thinking at the time), I just accepted it without trying to explain it. But we have  the God-given gift of thought, the ability to analyze and discern, which brings to light some serious weaknesses in the doctrine of Christ's "dual nature". How difficult could it have been for a "God-Man" to overcome temptation? Is it even possible for Jesus to have been tempted at all, let alone in the same sense that I 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, subscribing to a belief in the Trinity and the dual nature of Christ places a barrier between us. We take refuge in His humanity because we can relate to weakness and temptation, but we separate Him from ourselves via His Deity! 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. So, 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.

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! The orthodox Jesus, although claiming to be fully human, cannot possibly sympathize with my weaknesses, if he is at the same time conscious of being God. 

Let's be real. We haven't a clue what it is like to be God. If Jesus was both God and man, how is it possible for him share in our "'weaknesses"? And yet, if the Scriptures plainly stated His dual nature, if they unequivocally declared the Trinity of orthodoxy, then I would believe it. But the truth is there are no such Scriptures, and they make no such unequivocal declarations! What the Bible does say clearly, however, 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 Jehovah 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 imagine His prayers were for, among other things, strength and guidance and wisdom. 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 from sinning (Heb 2:10; 12:2). The impressive truth is that we are likewise expected to pray and keep ourselves from sinning! Most Church goers, 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? Should we just "'give up" and forget about ever living without sinning? 

I don't want to suggest that it is possible for us to be sinless in the same way that Jesus was, it's too late for that even if we never sinned again! But the fact is, we must keep on striving to make the right choices and keep ourselves from falling into willful sin. However, this is only possible so long as we believe it is possible; and it is much easier to believe it possible when we see 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).

Christology of Hebrews

It is so important to analyze – even be critical – of what we hear and read, especially when it comes to matters of faith and bible interpretation. I don’t mean we should be critical to such a degree that it fosters unbelief; but critical thinking can be healthy in so far as it encourages deeper thought and further study. In fact, I believe it is essential in coming to a knowledge of the truth! (1 Tim 2:3-5) In other words, don’t just accept everything written or spoken by well-meaning scholars and/or teachers as gospel truth. (2 Tim 2:15)
Since discovering the reality that the trinity doctrine is a contrivance of man, rather than a revelation of God, I have come to appreciate the necessity of critical thinking when using reference tools in my personal Bible study! All the books and reference tools in my Bible study library are fundamentally orthodox and traditional in their content. The fact is, a significant majority of the Bible reference works written, both past and present, were authored by Trinitarian scholars.
Our traditions have taught us that the orthodox view is THE correct view of the nature of God and Christ and therefore the ONLY acceptable view. All other views must therefore be false, even demonic. This tends to keep people from taking any other view seriously, much less actually reading literature which introduces an opposing view to their own. Yet, I know of no orthodox Christian who can satisfactorily answer for themselves, let alone those outside the household of faith, basic and reasonable questions regarding the conflict of the supposed “dual nature” of Christ. The patent answer to this obvious disparity is simply that “it’s a mystery”.
But the Bible makes no such conflicting statements. And if we allow ourselves to read with “new eyes” (that is, read without the filter of centuries of traditional teaching – as difficult as it may be) and do proper exegesis of the texts of Scripture, the Bible becomes a much more understandable, even believable book.
One of the Bible reference tools I use is the Nelson Study Bible. I haven’t thrown it away, nor will I. In fact, I still use all my reference works. But instead of taking their conclusions as the final authority, I’ve learned to be critical, and think for myself. Below is a reproduction of a table found in the Nelson Study Bible (NKJV) which I came across recently while reading in the book of Hebrews. The first column of the table gives the Scripture reference to Christ in Hebrews and the second column conveys the authors’ interpretation of it’s meaning. I have added a third column for my own commentary on each point.
//////////////////////////
The Majesty of Christ
Hebrews is perhaps the greatest
Christological book in the Bible, giving
us a detailed description of the at-
tributes and accomplishments of
Jesus Christ. The following chart is a
summary.

Christ is…	This means…	My commentary…
heir of all things (Heb 1:2)	As God’s “firstborn” Son, Christ will inherit infinite glory and honor.	Amen! In fact, he has already been “highly exalted” and given a “name above every name” (Phil 2:9-11)
the One through whom God made the worlds (Heb 1:2)	Christ was the Agent who created the universe.	Not so! The idea that Christ created the world comes from two false assumptions. The First false assumption is, that Christ is part of a triune God. If this is so, then the Father God was apparently not capable of creating the world on His own. The fact is, God alone created the world (Isa 44:24, ) and even Jesus agrees (Mat 19:4; Mk 10:6; Luke 11:40). The Second false assumption is, that the correct translation of the Greek word aion is world, or universe! Actually, an aion is an age. It was “through” Christ that God made the ages. He is the focal point of every age, past, present, and future. It makes no sense, within the following context of chapter one (esp. v9), to speak of Jesus as being the creator of the physical world.
the brightness of God’s glory (Heb 1:3)	Christ reflects the majesty of God.	Amen to that!
the express image of His person (Heb 1:3)	Christ is God made visible, in the flesh.	Now that is quite a leap from what the text says! Although Christ is the “exact” representation of God, he is still a “representation”! He IS the image of God we were meant to be had it not been for the fall of Adam. Jesus was the perfect man because he represented/reflected God’s glory, perfectly!
upholding all things by the word of his power (Heb 1:3)	Christ holds the universe together (Col 1:17)	Most Bible versions say “all things” rather than universe in both Hebrews and Colossians. The “all things” being held together is a reference to the new creation, not the physical universe.
seated at the right hand of the Majesty on high (Heb 1:3)	Christ is reigning and ruling with God the Father as Lord over all.	According to Acts 2:36, Jesus Christ has been “made” lord and Christ by God the Father. His lordship is now over the church – his body (Eph 1:22) – but will one day be over all the earth! (Rev 19:15) Then, when all his enemies are subdued, he will hand over the kingdom to God, that “God may be all in all.” (1 Cor 15:25-28)
better than the angels (Heb 1:4)	Christ is to be exalted more than the angels, no matter how glorious and awe-inspiring they are.	Duh! The Jews were not angel worshippers and didn’t need an exhortation to worship Christ above angels. The whole point of Hebrews is to show that God did a better thing in speaking through a son! Christ, although man, re-presented God better than any angel.
Captain of our salvation (Heb 2:10)	Christ is the founder of the effort to “bring many sons to glory” (Heb 5:9)	The word “founder” is translated from archegos, and is rendered in various versions as prince, leader, author, pioneer, and captain. The “founder” of our salvation is God the Father. God alone is the designer, the originator, of the plan of salvation. Jesus fulfilled God’s will in making His plan of salvation a reality. In bringing “many sons to glory”, it must be understood that Jesus is the “firstfruits” of those that sleep. (1 Cor 15:20) As archegos of salvation, he is the first to fully experience that salvation because God raised him from the dead. He is now leader of all who follow after him by faith. When he appears again (his second coming), “we will be like him” for we will “see him as he is” (1 Jn 3:2). This phrase “see him as he is” must be a reference to the fact that he is a glorified human being, otherwise John would be saying that we will become God when we see him. Even Trinitarians do not believe that!
the destroyer … of … the devil (Heb 2:14)	In dying for our sins, Christ overcame our greatest enemies – death and the devil.	How true! He is victor over sin and death, and in him, we are also overcomers in every way. (1 Jn 5:4, Rom 8:37)
a merciful and faithful high priest (Heb 2:17)	Christ brought the ultimate sacrifice before God – his own blood – so that we might have fellowship with God.	Praise God, the sacrifice of his life’s blood did indeed make it possible for us to have fellowship with God! However, it should be noted that the bible doesn’t really say that Jesus presented his blood before the Father. This is conjecture based on the pre-sumption that he is the God-Man of the trinity. It is true that the role of high priest was to take the blood into the holy of holies once a year, on the day of atonement, and this is where the symbolism comes from; however, the point the writer wants to make here is that as high priest, Jesus had to be human in order to atone for humanity.(Heb 10:4-5)
worthy of more glory than Moses (Heb 3:3)	Unlike Moses, who was merely a servant in the house of God, Christ is the “Son over His own house” (Heb 3:6).	That’s right, Jesus is worthy of more honor than Moses, and that is because he is more than a servant or great prophet, but a unique son! The better translation of v6 is “faithful over God’s house as a son” This is in line with v4 which reads “the builder of all things is God.” Otherwise, it sounds as if the house is the son’s, when in fact, it is God’s! Notice also that in v2, Jesus was “faithful to him who appointed him” just as Moses was also appointed and faithful. And who appointed Moses? The same God, the only true God (Jn 17:3), that appointed Jesus. (Acts 10:42, 17:31; Heb 1:2)
a high priest who can sympathize with our weak-nesses (Heb 4:15)	While on this earth, Jesus experienced the temptations and trials of living in a fallen world. He understands the struggles we face and has com-passion for us.	He understands us perfectly because he is one of us! (Heb 2:17) Yes… Jesus is no longer on the earth, he is in heaven. But prefacing the statement with “While on this earth”, and the use of the word “experienced” leads one to think that Jesus pre-existed his life on earth and merely experienced humanity. This kind of manipulation robs this text, and others, of it’s full impact
always alive to make intercession (Heb 7:25)	Christ’s priesthood is eternal. We will always have a perfect represent-ative for us before the throne of God.	He’s always alive now, but he is not eternal in the sense that he always lived before! The first part of this verse says he is able to fully save those who come to God “through” him.
Mediator of a better covenant (Heb 8:6)	The old covenant with its earthly tabernacle and imperfect priests has been super-seded by the sinless Christ. He is our high priest who is interceding for us before God in heaven.	It is true! But Christ mediates a better covenant because it is founded upon better promises, not because he is sinless and the priests of the old covenant were not. Notice also that the verse declares that Christ’s ministry as high priest has been "given” him, or “obtained” by him. How did he obtain it unless it was given to him? And who gave it? It was God who gave him the better ministry! (1 Tim 2:5)
our model for enduring hostility from sinners (Heb 12:2-3)	When we are discouraged, we can find strength and inspiration in Christ’s willingness to persevere.	Amen to that! But as soon as we consider Christ to be more than a man – to be God as well as man – the inspiration is lost! We cannot fully relate to a person who, although touted to be human like us, is at the same time, God! It is here that the similarity ends and the analogy breaks down. Notice that in the referenced Scripture, it was because of the “joy that was set before him” that he endured the cross and the hostility of sinners. What was that joy? Was it not the in-heritance of God’s kingdom on earth, where it was promised that he would reign supreme? Was it not the promise of the highest exaltation, that he should sit at the right hand of God? Similarly, our motivation, our inspiration, to endure hostility is that, we also will be exalted (James 4:6,10) and will reign with him, (Rev 5:10, 20:5)
that great shepherd of the sheep (Heb 13:20)	Christ will care for us and lead us to our eternal home.	Amen! He is indeed the great shepherd of the sheep. It seems, however, to be far too easy to overlook the part of this Scripture that says of God that He “brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus.” As shepherd, he knows the way, because he has been there; and he has both the power and authority to lead us, because it has been given to him!

Virtually every verse in this table which shows the majesty of Christ, also demonstrates the fact that Christ is not equal to God. Rather, Jesus is portrayed as a chosen vessel, exalted servant, and unique son. He is worthy of our praise, absolutely, but certainly not God himself!