Jesus: Son of David

Part III - Jesus: Son of Man, Son of God, Son of David

“And all the people were amazed, and said, "Can this be the Son of David?”
--Matthew 12:23

What did the people mean when they asked, "Can this be the Son of David?" Of course, Jesus' genealogy recognizes Him as being from the lineage of David (Matthew 1:1; Luke 3:31). But the question came as a result of the healing of the demon possessed man. This miraculous deliverance from demon possession was, according to Matthews view, taken as a definite sign of the the expected Jewish Messiah, the Chosen One of God, who would fulfill the prophecies concerning the throne of David. Thus, he is referred to as "Son of David", another title for the Messiah.

Although Jesus never used the title for Himself, others used it with great expectancy and faith, desiring mercy from Him for their particular needs. In Matthew 9:27, the blind man called out to Jesus as "Son of David" and asked for mercy. In Matthew 15:22 the Canaanite woman called Him "Son of David" when asking for mercy for her daughter. In Matthew 20:20, two blind men said "Lord, have mercy on us, 'Son of David'!" And in what is called His "triumphal entry" into Jerusalem in Matthew 21:9, the crowds shouted, "Hosanna to the 'Son of David'! Blessed is he who comes in the Name of the Lord!"

Fundamental to understanding this concept of the One coming in the Name of the Lord is Nathan's promise in 2 Samuel 7:12-16, namely, the raising up of a successor to David from his offspring, and the confirmation of his "house" and kingdom forever. This prophecy provides the basis for Psalm 2:7; 89:4; and 132:11. And even greater is the reference in Psalm 110:1 which is the most quoted Old Testament Scripture in the New Testament regarding Messiah Jesus. In fact, the one place where Jesus does refer to the Son of David is in Matthew 22:42 when he asks the Pharisees what they thought of the Christ, ie. whose son he is. In order to understand Jesus response, we need to look at the Psalm in it's Hebrew form.

In Psalm 110:1 there are two forms of the word "lord" used. The first is a direct reference to the Lord God, Yahweh. This word, translated LORD is used throughout the Old Testament and always refers to Yahweh, the personal name of God. The translators use all capital letters to distinguish it from other, lesser lords. The second use of Lord, which has only the first letter capitalized, is the word "adoni". This word is used 287 times in the KJV and refers only to men. It is sometimes translated master, and even sir. So who is this "lord" which David calls "my lord"? This is a clear reference to the the LORD's Messiah. The LORD God, said to David's lord, "Sit at my right hand..."

In Ezekiel 37:22-28, the prophet tells of a future time of peace and prosperity in which God's servant, David, shall be king over all Israel. This is figurative language referring to the promise made in 2 Samuel 7. David's offspring is simply called "David" to emphasize the keeping of God's promise to David, but it clearly indicates a descendant of David. Also, in Micah 5:2-4, the son of David is proclaimed as the one who would shepherd his flock in the strength of the LORD, and in the majesty of the Name of the LORD. Although the phrase “Son of David” is not found in this passage, the reference to Bethlehem, the city of David, is given as a figure of speech for the person himself.

All the above, in addition to many other Scriptures, identify the Son of David as a Messianic person who would come as savior and king, dispensing the righteous judgment and mercy of God. This was demonstrated in the person of Jesus through His ministry of teaching, deliverance, healing, and other acts of compassion. So then, when Jesus asked the question of the Pharisees as to how they understood the Christ, their answer, 'he is David's Son', was correct. However, Jesus calls to their attention the fact that David refers to him as his Lord. So, how can he be David's son and call him lord? Jesus answer shuts the mouth's of His enemies by demonstrating that as the promised Messiah, He is both a descendant of David AND the unique Son of God, and thus, greater than David. Jesus was directly saying to them that he was the Son of God, the Christ, the Messiah.

Jesus: Son of Man

Jesus: Son of God, Son of Man, Son of David - Part II

Son of Man

The term “son of man” is probably Jesus' favorite title for himself. The term appears 30 times in Matthew's gospel, 14 times in Mark's gospel, 25 times in Luke's gospel, and 12 times in the gospel of John. It is also found many times throughout the Old Testament, especially in Ezekiel where God refers to the prophet often as “son of man”. Perhaps the most notable passage though, is Numbers 23:19,

“God is not man, that he should lie, or a 'son of man', that he should change his mind...”

Here we get the real impact of the meaning of the term. Son of man is placed in opposition to Deity. To say one is a son of man is to say that he is human, that's it. Eerdman's Bible Dictionary says the term Son of Man is

“...a Semitic idiom for an individual human being or for mankind in general, particularly as distinguished from God”

As mentioned earlier, the term appears extensively throughout the book of Ezekiel. When God calls Ezekiel “son of man”, it is way to emphasize, or call attention to, His Deity and Ezekiels humanity - he is simply calling him “man”. Likewise, when Jesus refers to himself as “Son of Man” he is affirming his humanity. But in addition to his humanity, he affirms his status as God's Messiah, the Chosen One – His vice regent, or “right hand man”, if you will!

The 80th Psalm illustrates this point well. Here David prays for the restoration and salvation of Israel which he refers to as the “vine out of Egypt” (verse 8). But prophetically, this also looks forward to Jesus as “the true vine” (John 15:1) who also was brought out of Egypt (Matthew 2:13-19; Hosea 11:1). Then in verse 17 we find the term “son of man”.

“But let your hand be on the man of your right hand, the son of man whom you have made strong for yourself!” Psalms 80:17 (ESV)

Notice that the “son of man” is the MAN of God's right hand, who God MADE strong for Himself...”

Also, in the book of Daniel we find...

“I saw in the night-visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man, and he came even to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. 14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.” --Dan 7:13-14 (ASV)

This is probably the main Old Testament background for Jesus use of the term for Himself. Notice in both texts above that the “Son of Man” is MADE strong and GIVEN glory and a kingdom! Throughout the gospels Jesus constantly reaffirms the message that he does not act on his own but that his words, his deeds and his authority are all GIVEN to him directly from his Father. He never contradicts his own assertion of being the “Son of Man” by suggesting that he is also God Almighty (although many trinitarians use certain texts to support that view).

Matthew 12:32 clearly shows the difference between the “Son of Man” and God. Here, in Jesus own words...

“And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”

Now this is a strange thing for Jesus to say, if He is Deity. According the the doctrine of the Trinity, all three persons are “co-equal” - they are all three equally God. How are we to understand this then? If Jesus is both God and man, and the Holy Spirit is God, do not both deserve equal respect and honor? How can one blaspheme the Holy Spirit – God, and not be forgiven; yet blaspheme the Son of Man – God, and receive forgiveness? Something is amiss.

I think the answer is an easy one, if we can accept it. The simple truth is that Jesus, as the “Son of Man”, is human – anointed of God, but not himself God; the Holy Spirit here is God's power at work in His Messiah, - NOT a 3^rd person in a Trinity. We should remember that “ the spirit” was GIVEN to Jesus “without measure”, according to John 3:34. In other words, Jesus was endowed abundantly with God's Spirit so that Paul could say “...in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell.” (Colossians 1:19).

In Mark's account (Mark 3:28-30) we are given the answer to what it means to blaspheme the Spirit in verse 30, "for they had said, 'He has an unclean spirit'." So then, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the same as saying Jesus did miracles by demonic power rather than by God's power! To make such a statement would be to totally miss and fail to recognize the nature of Jesus relationship to God. But the point I wish to make here is that Jesus , the Son of Man, was a fully human Messiah, anointed with God's spirit, but not himself God.

One last text I'd like to mention is Hebrews chapter 2. I like the reading from the NET Bible, which says...

"2:5 For he did not put the world to come, about which we are speaking, under the control of angels. 2:6 Instead someone testified somewhere:
“What is man that you think of him or the son of man that you care for him?
2:7 You made him lower than the angels for a little while.
You crowned him with glory and honor.
2:8 You put all things under his control.”
For when he put all things under his control, he left nothing outside of his control. At present we do not yet see all things under his control, 2:9 but we see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by God’s grace he would experience death on behalf of everyone. 2:10 For it was fitting for him, for whom and through whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 2:11 For indeed he who makes holy and those being made holy all have the same origin, and so he is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters, 2:12 saying, “I will proclaim your name to my brothers; in the midst of the assembly I will praise you.” 2:13 Again he says, “I will be confident in him,” and again, “Here I am, with the children God has given me.” 2:14 Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, he likewise shared in their humanity, so that through death he could destroy the one who holds the power of death (that is, the devil), 2:15 and set free those who were held in slavery all their lives by their fear of death. 2:16 For surely his concern is not for angels, but he is concerned for Abraham’s descendants. 2:17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to God, to make atonement for the sins of the people. 2:18 For since he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted."

The above Scriptures, when read in context, make it abundantly clear that Jesus as “Son of Man” is human, and therefore separate in “substance” or “essence” from God. The whole point the writer of the book of Hebrews is making is to show that the New Covenant established through Jesus is superior to the Old. Jesus Himself is superior over all that have gone before him, including angels, the prophets, Moses, and the priesthood. So then, Jesus, as “son of man” is the human Messiah. One might rightly say that Jesus is divine, but it cannot be said that he is Deity from either the title “Son of God” or “Son of Man”.

Jesus: Son of God

Jesus: Son of God, Son of Man, Son of David - Part I

What do these titles or names of Christ say about him? It has often been suggested that “Son of God” refers to the deity of Jesus, while “Son of Man” refers to his humanity. Son of David, of course, speaks of Jesus as the expected “Messiah” of Israel, but what about Son of God and Son of Man? Do they represent His deity and humanity, respectively? Is that really what the terms are meant to convey? To answer these questions it's always best to start at the beginning.

Son of God

The beginning of Jesus is recorded in Matthew 1:18-20 and Luke 1:35 – his birth. Of course, in the Trinitarian scheme, Jesus pre-existed his birth at Bethlehem, so he had no beginning. But is it possible for one to exist before he exists? Let's look at the text of Luke 1:35...

“And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy--the Son of God.”

Here we have, in simple terms, the reason Jesus is called “Son of God”. The word therefore means “for this very reason” (dio kai in the Greek). In other words, the child born will be called the Son of God because – for the precise reason that – the Holy Spirit (here equated with the power of the Most High) would come upon Mary. Notice also that the word born is “genao” in the original language. This word family is also where we get "genesis", which means "origins". Genao means “to bring forth, conceive, procreate, bear, be born”.

There is nothing in the above text to indicate any pre-existent being who “entered into” Mary's womb and became a human embryo. Nowhere in the Bible do we find language such as “put on flesh”, “clothed in flesh”, “take on human nature”, etc., in connection with the nature of Christ or his birth. And we definitely do not find the term “God the Son” anywhere in the Bible! No, this is the plain language of a life coming into existence - being born - at a specific point in time. However, given the fact that Mary was miraculously impregnated with seed by the power of God and thus without a human father, Jesus would “be called holy—the Son of God"!

Whatever else may be said about the nature of the Son of God, we must recognize immediately that "Son" of God is not the same as God. Since God alone is immortal, without beginning or ending, it must be understood that a Son of God cannot be God in the same sense because there IS a beginning for the Son. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus is clearly seen as separate from, subordinate to, even dependent upon God the Father. Rather than equality to God, the Sonship of Jesus is seen in his unique relationship to God.

The fact is, "Son of God" IS NOT a title belonging only to Jesus, much less an indication that he is himself deity. There are others in Scripture who are also called sons of God.

• The angels are referred to as “sons of God” (Genesis 6:2; Job 1:6; Psalm 29:1; Luke 20:36). Jesus tells us that angels do not marry and cannot die. By inference they do not procreate (Luke 20:35-36). Therefore, angels are all created individually by God. He made so many of them, and no more. They are sons of God by reason of their individual creation.

• Adam is called the “son of God” because he was God's original creation, uniquely made (Luke 3:38). All men after Adam are “procreated” beings - they are made after Adams kind, not directly created by God (Genesis 1:1-12,21,24-25,28).

• Christians also are called “sons of God” (Romans 8:14 and 19; Galatians 3:26; because we are of the new creation. We have been “re-created”, born of “incorruptible seed” (1 Peter 1:23, 25, 2:1) as a result of receiving Jesus' and His message, and therefore authorized to be called “sons of God” (John 1:12).

So then, when the Bible calls Jesus the Son of God, instead of deity, it is a reference to his unique status with God. This in no way diminishes Jesus! In my view, it raises him to the status of the fully human, unique Son that He is, and makes His sinless life and suffering a greater accomplishment. It also keeps Paul's "two Adams" comparison, in Romans chapter 5, in tact. I'm simply making the point here that the designation “Son of God” does not refer to deity, but to uniqueness.

Three in One is a great lubricant ...

When did otherwise rational people begin believing that three persons equals one God? When and how did reasonable people begin accepting the idea that 1 does not really mean 1? What if I tried to give a dollar bill as payment for merchandise costing $3 and told the cashier not to worry, that even though it looked like only $1 it was actually worth $3? What would happen? Well maybe if the cashier had a good sense of humor, he or she might joke back with me. But the fact is, no thinking person accepts that kind of math when it comes to money, or anything else! Why then do we accept it when it comes to the subject of God?

For over 35 years as a Christian and student of the Bible, I never seriously considered that the doctrine of the Trinity could be false. I never understood it, but I always accepted it as true. My parents believed it, their parents believed it, my Pastors believed it, my Bible teachers and professors believed it. Like the majority of Christians today, I accepted this doctrine without question as the truth about the nature of God. The basis of this acceptance on such a wide scale, I think, is rooted in the notion that it's simply a "mystery" we must accept by faith since no one can expect to understand God in His totality! To question this divine revelation of "three Who's equaling one What", as suggested by the Bible Answer Man Hank Hanagraf, simply because it makes no logical sense to us, is futile and faithless. But is that right? Is that how we should approach the subject of the revealed nature of God? Is that actually what the Bible teaches? I don't think so!

Part of my “paradigm shift” concerns this Trinitarian concept of God. Until recently (roughly August '08) I believed in God the Father God the Son and God the Spirit, the three persons of the Trinity. I sang the songs and listened to the sermons referencing the three in one without bending an eyebrow. I was well aware that it made no sense, but I was content to be confused along with everyone else. When confronted with the irrationality of it, I considered the usual analogies of water, ice and steam, or depth width and height, or past, present and future, and of course the standard tripartite nature of man - body, soul and spirit.

One day those ideas just didn't work for me any longer. I was frustrated at having been a "Bible believing" Christian for so long and yet, having so few answers that satisfied my reason.

In my search for truth, I read some literature that so impacted me that I saw Scripture with new eyes. As I followed the Bible references with an open mind my thinking began to change. I can't say exactly what specific argument or premise brought about this sudden change but, overall, it just made good sense! In the past, I would never have allowed myself to read anything contrary to the orthodox view, but this time, I thought, if it's not true it can't hurt. Some might say I simply allowed myself to be deceived but I think, rather, I was just hungry enough to be curious enough to consider it. And having taken the time to consider it, I knew it was right!

Please understand that it is not my intention to be irreverent or cheapen in any way the Godhood of God! I do not deny Jesus as a genuine historical personality, nor do I question His virgin birth, his sinless life, or his Sonship; but I now see that I have gone beyond what the Bible teaches about him, or even what he says about himself. Rather than simply taking him at his word that, he is the Son of God, tradition has made him what he never claimed to be. As a result of this religious mysticism the theological waters have been muddied. Our concept of God is confusing, at best, and divisive to many who may otherwise be open to hear the gospel. Even in the gospel of John which provides the primary "proof texts" for the Deity of Christ, closes by declaring,

“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 20:31 (ESV)

For the first time in my adult life, I have been willing to take seriously the arguments of those who refute the Trinity. And now as I study the subject on my own, the evidence just keeps “piling up” in favor of my newly adopted understanding that, God the Father alone is God, Jesus is His son, the only begotten, and the holy spirit, rather than a person, is the active, personal, power of God at work in the world and the lives of believers.

I will submit my arguments from Scripture for this view in future posts, but if you are reading this and you believe in the Trinity, I must concede that 1700 years of Church history are on your side! The Trinitarian view of God has been called "orthodoxy" since the council of Nicea in 325 AD, and Trinitarian scholars would no doubt argue that the council only put down on paper what was already the accepted view by the majority of the Church.

However, it's not that simple. The history is complex. Other groups argued against the Trinitarian view for centuries after, with some later Councils overturning the Council of Nicea. But regardless of the current majority view, I believe sound reasoning and, more importantly, sound Scriptural evidence, will show that a Biblical Unitarian interpretation of Scripture is more faithful to the text of the Bible, more logically coherent to the Bibles message, and allows for a more exalted view of Jesus, the human Christ!

I'll be writing more on this later, but in closing I would like to quote from a Trinitarian source in order to make a point. In the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia under the topic “Trinity” we read as follows:

“The term “Trinity” is not a Biblical term, and we are not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it ... A doctrine so defined can be spoken of as a Biblical doctrine only on the principle that the sense of Scripture is Scripture. And the definition of a Biblical doctrine in such un-Biblical language can be justified only on the principle that it is better to preserve the truth of Scripture than the words of Scripture...

As the doctrine of the Trinity is indiscoverable by reason, so it is incapable of proof from reason. There are no analogies to it in Nature, not even in the spiritual nature of man, who is made in the image of God. In His trinitarian mode of being, God is unique; and, as there is nothing in the universe like Him in this respect, so there is nothing which can help us to comprehend Him...” [emphasis mine]

What is interesting to me is that the ISBE specifically states not only that “trinity” is an unbiblical term, but that the doctrine cannot be proven from reason. But then, oddly enough, the article goes on at great length in an attempt to prove the doctrine from reason! Huh?

Also, if "the sense of Scripture is Scripture", as the article puts it, I guess Scripture can mean whatever I want it to mean; that is, whatever my sense of it, that becomes Scripture! Can that be right? And, by the way, how can one “preserve the truth of Scripture” without preserving the “words of Scripture”? Isn't that just double talk? But this is typical when it comes to defining the doctrine of the Trinity. We must resort to all kinds of twisting and mutilation of words and reason.

It seems to me that the doctrine of the Trinity is not a revealed doctrine at all, but in fact, an inferred doctrine, and there is a big difference! If the doctrine of the Trinity is so important, and if God, indeed, intended to reveal Himself as a “triune” being, certainly He would have stated it plainly, and it would be made clear in BOTH Testaments. Indeed, we would not be left to “infer” anything!

"Three in one" is a great lubricant, but not such a great doctrine!

Your comments are welcomed.

God bless,

Keith

Paradigms

What is a paradigm? A paradigm is a pattern, or model; a framework from which one learns and understands. We all have them. They are given to us by our parents or friends - society in general - and dictate, to a large extent, how we interpret what we read, what we see, and what we hear.

I was raised by Christian parents. We attended Church regularly every Sunday morning, Sunday evening, and Wednesday evenings. Anytime there were special meetings, revival services, etc., we were there as well. My parents always insisted that I go with them. The Church we attended was part of a large, well known, pentecostal denomination and, oddly enough, I am still a member of the Church I grew up in, and now serve as a deacon and member of the praise band. The teaching of my parents and doctrines of my Church became my paradigm!

I want to say up front that I am grateful for the example of my parents, and the fact that they insisted on my Church attendance. As I was growing up, there was never any doubt about where they stood, spiritually. They lived their faith every day, consistently. And although I no longer agree with some of the things I was taught to believe, I have great respect and admiration for their unwavering faith. Both my father and mother were, in my opinion, excellent examples of what Christians should be. They were not perfect, but they were faithful to each other and to God, as they understood Him. However, they were, as are we all, most definitely victims of their paradigm, and the Biblical and world views they learned and practiced were the views they passed on to me and all my siblings.

So then, my religious upbringing - my paradigm - was pentecostal, evangelical, and fundamental. To break that down a little more, I was taught that...

• Jesus was the Son of God, but also "God the Son" (the 2nd person of the trinity);
• that Jesus was fully human, yet at the same time fully God;
• that Jesus was "God Incarnate" who came to earth in the form of man to die for sins so we could go to heaven when we die;
• that all who reject Jesus will go to hell when they die, and suffer unimaginable torment in a burning lake of fire for eternity;
• that, as a born again Christian, the Holy Spirit (the 3rd person in the trinity) lives inside of me, giving me power to live a holy life and be a witness for Christ;
• that "speaking in tongues" was the initial, physical evidence that one is actually "filled with the Holy Spirit.
• that as a Spirit filled believer, I could be a witness for Jesus not only in word, but in acts of power.

The last two bullet points above are peculiar to Pentecostal believers, but the rest are shared by all evangelical and fundamental Christians, in some fashion, as part of the Reformed Christian tradition.

In future posts, I will begin to share some ideas with you that have come from my personal study of Scripture and the reading of other informed Bible students and theologians, which reflect the changes in my belief system. But here they are, in a nutshell.

• I have come to the understanding that the doctrine of the Trinity is false;
• that men do NOT have souls that separate from their body at death;
• that heaven is NOT the destination of those who die in Christ;
• that hell is NOT currently occupied by the wicked dead, nor is it a place of eternal conscious torture.

Now at this point you may be thinking that I have really stepped off the deep end. But I assure you, I have not lost my faith; I have not lost my mind; and I most definitely have not become an atheist. You may call me a heretic if you must, but the fact is, my faith is stronger than ever! I love God, and I love Jesus, with all my being. I also have a renewed respect and awe for the Word of God, the Bible.

What has happened to me can best be described as a paradigm shift. I now see the Bible from a different angle. I view my faith through "new eyes" that have revealed a new pattern of understanding. To be sure, it has put me in a difficult position with my Church, and I have not yet decided how I am going to proceed. But to the best of my understanding, this new paradigm provides a more consistent, logical, and coherent view of what the Bible actually teaches about the doctrines mentioned above.

I am increasingly convinced that the doctrines I now hold are more true to the those received by the early Church. I must be true to my convictions. I serve God with a clear conscience.

God bless.

Keith

Are You A Seeker of Truth?

I am a "truth seeker".
If that sounds like I have NOT found the truth but I'm trying to find it, then, that is not entirely true.

I'm actually coming from the foundational belief and understanding that the Christian Bible is, in fact, the Word of God - God's message to mankind. Jesus said, "Thy Word (speaking of the Scriptures) is TRUTH!" (John 17:17). Further, Jesus said of Himself "I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life..." (John 14:6) And again, Jesus said, "You shall know the truth, and the truth will make you free." (John 8:32) So then, the Bible is God's Message, and Jesus - the Son of God - who also spoke God's words, is indeed the living Message of God to the world. And they (Jesus and the written word) are equally TRUTH; truth we can know... and truth that, when we embrace it, is able to make us free!

So you may wonder, if I'm already set on what truth is, and where to find it, why do I call myself a truth-seeker?

Good question.The foundation one stands on is important! If that foundation is weak or shaky, you run the risk of falling and getting hurt. If your spiritual, theological, and philosophical foundation is shaky and unstable, it can lead you to wrong conclusions about truth; and in the end, that can hurt. I have found the Bible, and faith in Jesus, to be a trustworthy foundation on which to build my life! However, I have come to realize lately that many of the teachings of "orthodox" Christianity, the traditional Christian beliefs I have embraced and taken for granted as truth, are actually based on very shaky ground! In fact, they seem to be grounded more in tradition than in the Bible itself. Yet, many of these traditional Christian teachings are not questioned by the masses; we simply accept them, assuming them to be true and accurate.

I have considered myself to be a Bible-believing Christian for well over 30 years. Coming to the realization that what I had staunchly believed and taught for most of my life was not only inaccurate and unbiblical, but based on pagan thought, was not easy to accept! It was extremely difficult for me to believe that I could have been so blinded to what the Bible actually said about certain things. I was just accepting information "about" the Bible as though it were true, without actually discovering it for myself.

Now, here's the rub. It's not as though I rarely picked up the Bible to read it. And it's not that I didn't have a personal, saving relationship with Jesus Christ. The fact is, I was converted in February of 1973! My life was totally changed! I went to Bible college and graduated with a degree in Bible and Pastoral Studies, and although I'm not currently a professional minister, I have continued to study Scripture faithfully on my own since that time. Over the years, I have acquired quite a large library of Christian and Bible related materials, both print and digital, and with all the resources that are available on the internet I have certainly lacked nothing in my quest for Bible information and understanding. Yet, I have now discovered that what I thought was Bible study was merely a reading of the Bible through "traditional orthodox lenses". I had simply been seeing what I was taught to see.

So this is the truth I seek:I seek to discover REAL Scriptural truth - to separate fact from fiction. I must say here that I do not have an "axe to grind", nor do I presume to have all the answers. I do not claim to have a perfect understanding of all the relevant teachings of Scripture, nor am I "down" on tradition, as such. Actually, the Bible speaks of tradition in a positive light and admonishes us to KEEP the traditions that have been handed down to us (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15).

So then, the question for me is... "What has been handed down to me... true traditions, or something else?"

Or to put it another way... "Does the current orthodox ecclesiastical system accurately (or even closely) reflect the teachings of Jesus and the traditions that Paul handed down to his converts?"

Since I have willingly removed my traditional glasses and began to read Scripture with (as it were) "new eyes", I believe I have a much clearer, less muddled, understanding of the Christian faith. This new paradigm leaves me with fewer "apparent" Biblical contradictions and has also renewed my excitement for Bible study and even deepened my relationship to God and to my Lord Jesus Christ! I share my discoveries and my passion here, joining the many faithful brothers and sisters who have preceded me in "new eyes of faith", in the hope that it will spur others to "rethink" their traditional positions and join us in this noble quest - to "know the truth" and be truly free! (John 8:32)

It is my intention to use this medium to expose doctrines which, in my opinion, are based on unsound hermeneutics (Bible interpretation principles). You are welcome to post your comments (pro or con) about the views expressed here. If you disagree, that's OK, but please, be respectful and courteous. I look forward to hearing from you.