God Needs a Man

Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good People: Part 3

“By faith Noah…condemned the world”
Hebrews 11:7

Whenever I get to this point of the conversation I make the bold statement that, “God can’t do anything on earth without man’s co-operation!”  This is followed by silence, anger, and children’s bible stories.  It’s as if every story ever told with a felt board in Sunday School class comes gushing to memory of whomever I’m talking with.

So go ahead, take a minute and try to remember every Bible story you have ever read…
Now which story can you recall where God did not use a man?

I know, right?!  There are none.  God always used the actions or words of a physical man.   For every event from the time of Adam to Jesus and beyond, God has told a man to do something, and through that “something”, God moves.  God always uses a physical being on earth to speak to something, or raise a staff.  If He wants to curse a fig tree, separate the Red Sea, or destroy a city, he needs a man.

Why?

Because only a man has the authority and dominion over the earth.  God cannot intervene without our permission and co-operation because he said it, and God doesn’t break his word.

Well, what about the Flood, Josh?  God didn’t need a man to bring the Flood on Earth!

Actually he did! The author of Hebrews expressed this revelation in Heb 11:7.  Not only did the Flood require faith to manifest, but he said that Noah (not God) condemned the earth.  He could not act without a man.

How about for God to save the freaking world?...  He needed a man.  (Granted, a perfect man, but a man nonetheless.)

Are you saying that the creator of the universe is somehow unable to have his complete and perfect will on the earth?

Well, you either have to swallow that pill, or turn on the news and accept it as God’s best.   I’m not seeing an option C here.

PART 4

Dominion Over the Earth

Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good People: Part 2

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”  Gen 1

People who try to argue for Sovereignty will pull out all kinds of verses from the Bible.  There is a time and place to really dig in and “discuss” bible verses, but let me ask one simple question:  To whom did God give dominion over the earth?

It would seem significant to me that God first created a world that was formless, void, dark, and chaotic.  He then begins to create things to bring order to the chaos.  He creates light to subdue darkness, and he creates space to separate the chaotic waters.  God brings the entire creation (which was by nature chaos) into submission, and then hands it over to Adam.   He told Adam to “have dominion” and to “subdue the earth.”  I’m not sure how He could have been clearer.

So if you are going to walk into the room, look at all the problems, then ask, “Who is in charge here?” God is just going to look over at Adam and say, “Do you want to take this one?”

Come on, Josh!  God made all of this, so obviously He is in control.

…Let’s talk about that.


If you’re saying that God “owns” the world because he created it, and that he has the power to destroy it whenever He sees fit, then yes!  I would agree 100%.  
If you are trying to say that God can intervene into a realm where He has freely given dominion to someone else, then we have some problems.

PART 3

“Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good People”

Part 1

 As I’m writing this, it is the Christmas season of 2012 and a horrific event has taken place in America.   It will go down in history as the Sandy Hook Shooting.  This event is spurring on all kinds of conversations from mental illness, to gun control, school security, and God.  People on social sites are pleading with God to act, or comfort, and asking how He could let this happen. 

Pulpits on Sunday mornings across America try to give words of comfort.  Some simply acknowledge that they don’t have answers for our “God of Mysteries,” while others try to twist this into a version of God’s will in which it might aid in the callings and ministries of the survivors; and still an arrogant sect blame The Father of Heaven and his son for the actions of a gunman.  These people claim that it was in God’s sovereign will from the beginning of time for these events to take place.  They declare that it brings glory to God, whether we understand it or not.  After all, “who are you—mere man—that you are to talk back to God?” 

If these answers don’t sit well with you, you are not alone.  The reason these responses above don’t bring peace is simple:   They are not revelation.  They are man’s attempt to filter the events of the world through theology.  The reason it does not set you free is that it is not truth. 

The church has a doctrine that is rooted so deeply within itself that it’s rarely discussed or challenged.  The Sovereignty of God is one of the worst doctrines man has ever invented.  By design, it sounds like it gives glory to God, but in reality it is a scapegoat used to blame all of the world’s crap on our dad.  If we believe that God can do anything that he wants to do, then by default he desires every “Bad Thing” that has ever occurred.

PART 2

I am the First and the Last

Same Names of God and Jesus:

Revelation 1:17

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

Revelation 2:8

 "To the angel of the church in Smyrna write:  These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again.”

Isaiah 44:6

“Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God.”

I understand the logic comparing the names of the Father to Jesus. Some argue that the Father is called the First and Last as well as Jesus therefore they are the same.  However, do we also believe that God died?  If you believe that the “First and Last” is strictly a title for the Father or the Triune God, then you would have to say that God “the First and Last” died at some point.  You must believe that one member of the Triune God can die.  Jesus didn’t say I am the First and Last who died (only as a man) and came to life (again as a man)…

If the Trinitarian Son can die, then why not the Father?  Before you say that only Jesus’ flesh or humanity died I would have to argue that point.  Study the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16) and learn how the 3 animal symbols of Jesus died, each atoning for the spirit, soul, and body of humanity. The goat sin offering, the burnt offering, and the goat that was lead out of camp was shoved down a steep cliff; being sent back to `Azazel (refer also to the Book of Enoch).  As it was shoved down the cliff its body was shattered.   However, that is another teaching.

I have heard lots of verses that call God something in the Old Testament then later call Jesus the same thing.  I just don’t think that is a strong argument.  Especially when talking about the word “lord.”  I have no conflict with the close relationship of the Father and Son.  Their ministries are entwined.  They shared the same body during Jesus’ earthly ministry.  I just don’t believe that giving them the same and similar titles is as dramatic of a statement that some argue. 

We seem to forget that some of these titles were given to Jesus.  He had to acquire them.  Jesus previously did not have and then later received the name that is above all names.  This doctrine also is not accounting for the dispensations.  Prior to Jesus the Father was the King of Kings, and later Jesus became the King of Kings.  These titles are in relation to how the son and Father relate to the earth.  Jesus is not the King over the Father and I have already shown that the son is subject to the Father not equal. 

Now back to Isaiah 44:6.  There is another issue to talk about with this verse.  Some people believe that “his redeemer” is talking about Jesus. They read this verse as “..the Lord the King of Israel, and the Lord’s redeemer (Jesus).”  However, this verse in context is talking about Jacob, who is also called Israel and Yahweh who is the redeemer of Israel/Jacob:

Isaiah 43:1-28

“But now, thus says YAHWEH, your Creator, O Jacob, And He who formed you, O Israel, "Do not fear, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name; you are Mine!... says the Lord, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel.... I am YAHWEH, your Holy One, the Creator of Israel, your King.... Yet you have not called on Me, O Jacob; but you have become weary of Me, O Israel.... I will consign Jacob to the ban and Israel to revilement.

If you understand the verse in context Isaiah 44:6

reads:

“Thus saith the LORD (the King of Israel, and Jacob’s redeemer, the LORD of hosts); I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and apart from me [there is] no 'elohiym.” 

Just wanted to clear that up.

This is the end of everything I have to say about the Trinity.  If you have read the blog series and still have questions feel free to ask.  Notice the disclaimer "if you have read the blog series."  If there is something I did not cover that is relevant this is the time to address it.

If you just want to argue please see the "about me" section of the blog.

the Author of Life

Acts 3:15

“And killed the Prince (Author) of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.”

The word for "Prince" or author in some translations is – archēgos: the chief leader, prince; of Christ one that takes the lead in anything and thus affords an example, a predecessor in a matter, the pioneer, the author. Some use this verse to put Jesus as the author of the universal creation. I’m not seeing that. Adam was simply the pioneer of death, Jesus of life.

The comparison of Jesus to Melchizedek

Hebrews 7:3

“Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually”

This verse is used sometimes to show that Melchizedek had no beginning (like Jesus) therefore Jesus is God. (weird. I know.) However one must also believe that, with this logic, Melchizedek is God as well. Also one would have to accept that, like Melchizedek, Jesus did not have a Father, Mother, or genealogy . Either this is true or only certain aspects of the comparison apply to Jesus?

Also, if there was a Melchizedek then he was at some point born from a mother and father. The comparison is showing how Melchizedek’s priesthood is understood and recorded in history. This is not a statement about Melchizedek’s eternal or inhuman nature; nor is this the statement with Jesus. It is simply stating that Jesus’ priesthood will not end.

He Was in the Form of God

Philippians 2:6-8

ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων
Who in the form (morphe- external appearance [children are said to reflect the form of their parents]) of God is presently existing.
οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο
not esteeming a thing seized or to be seized or held on to
τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ
his being or having the nature, rank, authority, of God

This is talking about how Jesus had the nature of his Father not the nature of Adam. This nature gave him authority as a man as he had previously in heaven. And even though he had this he did not esteem it as something he had to violently keep.

ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν
But emptied himself of reputation or made vain his own force
μορφὴν δούλου λαβών,
the form (morphe-external appearance) of slave he took
ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος·
in the likeness or resemblance of man (Adam-humanity) he came into a state of being
καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος
and his outward appearance was found as man

This is talking about the how he was perceived verses what his nature as God’s son was. He was viewed as just as empty as every other man yet that was not the case. He looked like a slave to death on the cross, just a man of Adam. He had to empty himself of reputation and his ability to overcome death in order to die.

ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν
he humbled or lowered himself
γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου,
becoming obedient unto death
θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ.
death even of a cross.

He was not a slave to death, so in order to atone for the slaves he had to humble himself contrary to his nature of life and obey the dominion and limits of death in order for his body to die. He lowered himself to receive what the slaves were under. Though he clearly obeyed God I don’t think that is what this verse means. I believe he was obeying death, the “slaves” master.

In context these verses are talking about how Christians humble themselves and have the mind of Christ as he was humbling himself. It’s talking about regardless of your authority or rights or how you are perceived you must keep the focus of the kingdom leading your mind and not your flesh.
In his flesh Jesus could have said death has no power over me and he would not have died. He had authority over death. But for the sake of others he emptied himself on the cross and was perceived as a slave to death.

God then exalted him in verse 9. Did Jesus then exalt himself or did someone else?

Omnipresence & Revelation 4:11

Revelation 4:11

This verse is often used to show that Jesus was in fact the creator God of the universe. However, if you read all of chapters 4 and 5 you will see that, "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being,” is directed to the person sitting on the throne; who is not Jesus. Next to the one on the throne is a book that none can open. Then…

Rev. 5:6-7
“And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb (I hope we can agree the lamb is Jesus) as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.”

Omnipresent:

I won’t spend much time here. However, to say (as some would) that Jesus or the Father is, or is perceived as, omnipresent makes them each by default God is a ridiculous statement. We have no complete idea how the spirit realm interacts with our physical realm in a mechanical sense.

I could just as easily say that I or my spirit is currently seated in a heavenly place and yet is here on earth in my body. If the body without the spirit is dead, and I am not dead, then my body must contain a spirit that is both present with me and seated in heaven at the same time. Does that make me omnipresent or do you simply not understand specifically how the spiritual realm relates to the physical? All this to say, I reject a doctrine of omnipresence that includes transcending time, nor would it be an exclusive characteristic of deity if it were true.

By him were all things created...

Colossians 1:15-17:

ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου,
who is the image of God invisible
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως,
firstborn of all establishment
ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα
for in him established all
ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς
in the heavens and upon the earth
τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι
the visible and the invisible whether thrones or lordship or highest authority (or the ability to make power felt)
τὰ πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται,
all by him and in him are founded (established)
καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ nτὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν.
and he is above all (authority) and all (authority) in him stands together. [( ) = mine]

I believe this is simply talking about how and where he established authority. Because he was born a man he was able to establish his authority in heaven and earth. Now all authority is his whether it is visible or invisible.

One other thing to consider about the Colossians verses. The word translated created or creatures is the word ktizō. The concept of the word can potentially mean the creation of the world, but it is better understood to mean a re-forming, shaping, or settling. It is the idea of a pioneer that goes into a wild land and establishes rule and livelihood; building cities, and establishing dominion over chaos.

I think this is much more accurate considering the specific list of things that were established in and by him such as thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers. (kjv) It's not putting Jesus at the beginning of time in the process of the universal physical creation. (Though he may have been present) It is putting him in his ministry of establishing dominion in heaven, earth, and all things below the earth. It is talking about his reclamation of authority for the Father. To whom he will give all of this authority and dominion back. (1 Cor. 5:28)

Son of God = God??

Some argue that because Jesus claims to be the Son of God that he is therefore God. I have always stated that Adam was also God’s son yet not the Creator himself.

Luke 3:23-38
“And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son (huios) of Joseph, of Heli, of Matthat, of Levi, of Melchi, of Janna, of Joseph…of Adam, of God.”
As you progress down the linage of Fathers and sons there is no Greek word stating each as son prior to each name. There is only the definite article. This is similar to le or la in French. In the Greek it simply shadows the conjugation of the Greek word. So in vs. 23 through 28 it is a genitive conjugation of each man’s name signifying they are “of” the previous name; as in, “I am Josh, (who is the son) of Stan, (who is the son) of Jack.”

More specifically each of these conjugated names is not only modifying the previous name but in context is drawing from the original word son or (huis). Therefore, Adam is declared the son of God in vs. 38 because all of these names are in the same phrase as vs. 23. Technically, Luke 3:23-38 in the Greek is one sentence, so to speak.

As if this wasn’t enough it amazes me how people’s minds work. All I really have to say is, “aren’t you a son or daughter of God? Aren’t there many scriptures to justify that statement?” As soon as I bring that up the person who initiated this poor argument starts to squirm, then tries to show a difference between Jesus being THE son of God and we are just A (child) of God.
Really? So he is not the first born of many brethren? Jesus is no more or less a son of God than I am. Granted it is because of him that I am a son and I’m grateful, but that doesn’t change what is. Being a (or) the son of God does not make you by default God.

Does God Have Blood?

Acts 20:27-31

“…which he hath purchased with his own blood.”

So the church was purchased with blood but whose blood was it? That would depend on who's church it is.

This is one example of scripture dependant on which Greek your translation uses. “The Authorized Version of 1611 (King James Version) utilizes the Textus Receptus ("Received Text") as the basis for the Greek New Testament. The Textus Receptus is based upon various Greek texts but also carries some influence from the Latin Vulgate. The earliest work was prepared by Desiderius Erasmus. This work was later revised by Robert Estienne (or, Stephanus) and further revised by Theodore Beza. The text produced by each is substantially the same, aside from some minor variations.”
In the KJV it says, “ἐκκλησίαν (church) τοῦ θεοῦ (of God).”

I use the Constantinus Tischendorf Greek New Testament and reference with the KJV. Tischendorf “is perhaps best known for his discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus (one of the oldest extant copies of the New Testament in Greek, circa 360 A.D.) in a monastery at the foot of Mount Sinai. Tischendorf devoted his life to locating the most accurate sources for the compilation of the Greek New Testament. This desire for the earliest, most reliable manuscripts drove him for most of his life. The result of this drive is Tischendorf's Eighth Edition Greek New Testament, completed just two years prior to his death, and considered by many to be his best.”
It represents the oldest known text and says, “ἐκκλησίαν (church) τοῦ κυριου (of the Lord).”

Another Greek version I use occasionally is the Byzantine/Majority Text. It blends a variety of Greek texts to form a type of harmony. “The Byzantine text-type (also called Majority, Traditional, Ecclesiastical, Constantinopolitan, Antiocheian, or Syrian) is one of several text-types used in textual criticism to describe the textual character of Greek New Testament manuscripts. It is the form found in the largest number of surviving manuscripts, though not in the oldest. The New Testament text of the Greek Orthodox Church, the Constantinople Patriarchate edition of 1904, is based on this text-type. While considerably varying, it also underlies the Textus Receptus Greek text used for most Reformation-era translations of the New Testament into vernacular languages. Modern translations mainly use Eclectic editions that conform more often to the Alexandrian text-type.
The Byzantine text is also found in modern Greek Orthodox editions, as the Byzantine textual tradition has continued in the Eastern Orthodox Church into the present time. The text used by Greek Orthodox Church is supported by late minuscule manuscripts. It is commonly accepted as standard Byzantine text.”
The Byantine text uses them both saying, “εκκλησιαν (church) του κυριου (of the Lord) και (and) θεου (of God).”

So take your pick. I personally believe that the Father is a spirit and does not actually have blood and that if speaking of “God’s blood” this is more of a statement about sonship and not Trinity. My son Caleb is my flesh and blood because he is my son. If I was a being without flesh and blood I could still use the word picture but that is not to say God has blood. Nor is it a proof that:

a. God purchased with blood
b. Jesus is the one with blood therefore
a=b Jesus is the Trinitarian God…

Did Jesus Create the Universe?

Trinity Verses

Hebrews 1:2
“Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;”

I believe this translation is misleading. I could break down the Greek and show word by word how this is poorly translated, however here is one simple word to look at which shows the intent of the verse. The word cosmos consistently is used in Greek scripture to show the physical world/universe or metaphysical anti-godly human collective.

However, in Hebrews 1:2 the word translated “world” is αἰών - forever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity; the worlds, universe, period of time, age. Even the 38 times it is translated “world” its’ context is using it as a synonym for age.

For example:
Mathew 12:32
“And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the [world] to come.”

Hebrews 1:2 is stating that the Father “made” brought forth or birthed - ποιέω – our current church age, or eon, and our future age or ages, through Jesus. We are currently living in the “age to come” that Jesus prophesied. So you could say Jesus is the son, "by whom also (the Father) brought forth the age".

Also, relating back to the Hebrews passage, how could Jesus be “appointed” heir of all things if he himself made all things and they were already his? An heir receives that which belonged to someone else.

II Peter 1:1-2

Trinity Verses

II Peter 1:1-2:
“Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,”

Some say this verse is stating that God and Saviour both modify Jesus Christ. I will most definitely argue that the language of this II Peter passage is debatable. Some translations, like the NIV (which I don't recommend), put the “our” with God instead of savior, “our God and Savior Jesus Christ.” In the Greek either can be considered correct. But let’s put it into the context of other greetings found in the Epistles.

Romans 1:7
“Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

1 Corinthians 1:3
“Grace [be] unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and [from] the Lord Jesus Christ.”

2 Corinthians 1:2
“Grace [be] to you and peace from God our Father, and [from] the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Galatians 1:1-3
“Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;) And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia: Grace [be] to you and peace from God the Father, and [from] our Lord Jesus Christ,”

Ephesians 1:1-2
“Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace [be] to you, and peace, from God our Father, and [from] the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Philippians 1:2
“Grace [be] unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and [from] the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Colossians 1:2-3
“To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace [be] unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,”

1 Thessalonians 1:1
“Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians [which is] in God the Father and [in] the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace [be] unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

2 Thessalonians 1:2
“Grace unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

1 Timothy 1:1
”Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, [which is] our hope;”

2 Timothy 1:1
“Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,”

Titus 1:4
“To Titus, [mine] own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, [and] peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.”

Philemon 1:3
“Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

James 1:1
“James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.”

My only point is that if one uses the wording found in the grammar of II Peter 1:2, which varies with different translations, then what do you do with the clear statements made by virtually every other letter in the New Testament; statements that clearly distinguish between God and Jesus? God is the Father and Jesus is the Lord.

John 5:18, 1 John 3:2, Titus 2:11-14

Trinity verses

This section is based on various conversations and letters I have engaged in. I’m hoping to bring clarity to verses that some find problematic.

John 5:18
“Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.”
If I say that God is my Father does that make me equal with God? Yes, in Elohim nature but that does not mean I am Jehovah.

1 John 3:2
“Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.”
Do we believe that we are part of the Trinity or are we willing to accept an alternative meaning to son-ship and equality with God? I doubt that most would argue against the fact that we can be sons and daughters of God. Nor would these children say that God is not their Father. However, if calling God your Father requires one to be “God” then maybe we can agree on the Elohim understanding of equality.

Titus 2:11-14:
The best translation is the KJV in this instance:

“Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ;”

Follow Peace

Why I Reject the Trinity Part: 16

This is the end. I don’t know how most of you have received any of this but it was all meant to help. I hope that accepting my lens of Jesus will help you in many ways.

I hope it will help those of you who accept Paul’s Gospel to have a place with less or no tension with Jesus’ actions and words. That instead of trying to rape and twist scripture to make Jesus perpetually “fat and happy” you can accept him for who he is. He is an emotional person who loves you. He has expectations, joy, intimacy, and at times disappointment with his bride. He is our Lord, husband, King, friend, and brother. The Father is reconciled with humanity; Jesus, not so much.

Understanding the Elohim will, I believe, tear down walls between us and God and our Lord. They are not distant from us. Regardless of how many times we chant and sing about our “closeness” to them, in our minds it is hard not to feel separated from such a distinctly different nature of being found in the Trinity. Removing the doctrinal hurdles between us and them can bring tenderness and warmth to a previously cold and sacred point of view.

Finally I hope understanding Jesus as the vehicle of the Father and the place where we commune with the Father will help us to understand their ministry of reconciliation. It can increase how we view his strength and worthiness as our savior. It will also help us understand our ministry of reconciliation as well.

I have never talked with a person who did not at some point in their life question the Trinity. It has become one of those concepts you must either accept or reject. Most people feel that to reject the Trinity is to somehow reject or diminish Jesus. I honestly think my position glorifies him more. Yet none of that is my motivation. I accept my lens simply because I believe it is truth and I have peace from my spirit on the matter. Let the Holy Spirit guide you in truth on this and follow his peace.

(Though this is the end of the teaching I will continue to post scriptures after this that people find problematic. Most would be bored with it and I don’t technically consider it part of the teaching. However, it may be necessary for those who still have hang-ups/questions.)

Am I the "antichrist"??

Why I Reject the Trinity Part: 15

[We are told that by believing in Jesus we are MADE the very righteousness of GOD through Christ (II Corinthians 5:21). Why does it not say we are made the righteousness of Christ through faith in Him? Jesus could only give us what He had. If it is Jesus’ righteousness that was exchanged for our unrighteousness, how is it that this says what is imputed to us is God’s righteousness? I believe the answer is that Jesus possessed God’s righteousness because He was God in the flesh - therefore we are able to receive the very righteousness of God, which is His, credited to our account.] An anonymous friend


This is a misunderstanding of righteousness. Righteousness is not a substance and it is not holiness. It is right standing, a position. Jesus is in right standing with the Father. If you are in Christ you can experience the free gift of being in his right standing with God. The definition of righteousness is - in a broad sense: the state of him who is as he ought to be, righteousness, the condition acceptable to God. The state of being is dictated by God therefore is God’s righteousness, but Jesus holds the position. So Jesus is in right standing with God or you could say God’s righteousness. Once again Jesus is a vehicle. We use him to enjoy God. God is in him and so are we. Jesus is our tent of meeting.

2 Corinthians 5:21
“For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”

2 Peter 1:1
“Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ:”

1 Corinthian 1:30
“But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:”

Antichrist?

Some accuse or warn me of my doctrine being antichrist.

II John 1:7-8
“Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully.”

I John 4:1-3
“Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.”

I believe Jesus came in the flesh. The authors of the Apocalypse of John, the Gospel of John, as well as I, II and III John wrote to the Johannine community. Some members departed and became a rival sect, mostly over the question of the 'flesh' of Jesus Christ. I John was most likely written between 90-120 A.D., these groups tended toward certain Gnostic teaching that believed the flesh was inherently evil and therefore Jesus did not have flesh.

I understand the thoughts and concerns on the matter. It would seem that most initial responses to an “attack” on the Trinity would be negative. I’m not offended by these statements and I appreciate that people care to speak to me about it. However, I don’t believe they are correct. In fact, though technically including Jesus’ flesh, the Trinitarian position diminishes his flesh far more than mine.

I hope after reading this all can see that I strongly believe Jesus came in the flesh. These verses do not relate to any Trinitarian ideas. If the text said, “every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus as being the third member of the Triune God is of the antichrist,” then you would have a great case.

Orthodox Christianity believes that Jesus is God in the flesh because it is an important part of the Imperial Church and their doctrines. After the Council of Nicea the church was in bed with Rome, and Constantine would not allow disunity in the church. The text we have in the canon is a direct result of the prompting of a pagan emperor.

Orthodoxy means nothing to me. This doctrine is anything other than clear in scripture. Even when I agree to limit myself to the cannon most Trinitarians deemed authoritative, the text fails to prove their doctrine. History is written by those who win the wars and so was the Trinity doctrine.

The Grand Canyon is Just a Big Hole

Why I Reject the Trinity Part: 14

[I believe that knowing God is the One who came and died for us is significant for several reasons, one of which is that it shows us the extent of His love – that HE was willing to keep both ends of the covenant for us since we couldn’t keep our end. In the Old Covenant it was always, “if you” “if you” “if you”, but in the New Covenant it is “I will” “I will” “I will”. On several occasions in the OT, we see God saying that He looked, but no one could be found to accomplish His purposes, so He declares that He would do it Himself.]
An anonymous friend

I understand why some feel this way. The major difference between my view and this is that the new covenant did not completely hinge on God it hinged on Jesus and his obedience. God now has a covenant with Jesus if we want to get in on this covenant we have to be inside of Jesus. In a sense this gets back to my point of Jesus being tempted. I believe Jesus could have failed just like Adam did. That fact that he could have failed makes his accomplishment more significant. My understanding of Jesus glorifies him more, technically.

This is the same reason I prefer the city to nature. Carla and I have discussions about this all the time. She goes to the Grand Canyon and is amazed and in awe of God and what he made. However, when I see it, though it is magnificent, it is not really that impressive. It is not as if God really had to struggle to make it. He just had to speak and it was. (and technically erosion made it, so...) If a being has no limitations then how is it impressive for them to “accomplish” something? That is like me writing my name on a piece of paper and expecting you to be impressed. My actions would only be impressive if I do something beyond my perceived capability.

If Jesus is God doing what God does and effortlessly redeeming us with his perfect God nature what is the accomplishment? Even if I’m dead wrong I am still extremely grateful for what the Trinitarian Godhead did for us. However, believing that Jesus had to live in a fallen world as a man and not sin is amazing. He cleaved to the Father for every step and word and proved that with the right nature it can be done. What an amazing accomplishment. He is worthy, worthy, worthy because he overcame. God deserves praise by default, because of who He is. Jesus deserves it because of what he did. He endured and earned it; that is far more impressive than just being.

PART 15

The Word Became Flesh

Why I Reject the Trinity Part: 13

I am still working out the revelation of the origin of Jesus. I do believe that he existed prior to his birth on earth. He is mentioned in the book of Enoch as the “Son of Man” or “Elect One” who sits on a throne with the Father. This man will bring righteousness to the elect. He will cause the gentiles to repent and judge the living and the dead. Sections of this book were written possibly up to 3,100 years prior to Jesus birth.

The Book of Enoch is quoted in the book of Jude.
“And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard [speeches] which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” Jude 1:14-15

“And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones to execute judgment upon all, and to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.” 1Enoch 1:9

Whatever Jesus was prior to the incarnation I believe his incarnation in human form was done through word. (John 1) That is, the word of God that was revealed in pieces to men over the first 6,000+ years of humanity, and spoken by men into the physical world. Without that process Jesus could not have accessed our planet. God had to speak him into physical existence through men because we had dominion over the physical world. In essence God had to get men to say, "Let there be Jesus!" and there was Jesus. (see Dominion 1 & 2) It just took 6,000+ years for men to cooperate with God on this one. Would you have been the one to say, "a virgin shall conceive"?

I don’t believe he was the abstract or impersonal Logos of the Father. I believe he was the son of God and a being of some kind in the Elohim yet was someone other than and inferior in rank to the Father. At his human incarnation he became something that did not previously exist and remains that way in a glorified state. In essence he changed in substance and rank, the Father does not.

Origen Adamantius (184/185–253/254) has some interesting ideas on this topic. I can’t say that I agree with him regarding the pre-existence of souls but I find his version of the pre-existent Jesus very interesting to say the least.

That's all I have to say about that.

PART 14

Every Knee Shall Bow

Why I Reject the Trinity Part: 12

The reason men should not bow to angels is not because of some understanding that bowing is only reserved for God it is because they don’t have authority over us. Even Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, when they refused to bow, it was because they were asked to bow to an idol not the king. The Jews were allowed to bow to men in authority because that authority is legitimate. They are not allowed to bow to idols and false gods because their authority is false.

In reference to the demons that worship him in the Bible, again these verses were all about authority. It wasn’t as if the demons fell in loving adoration or reverence. They fell in fear before a man that had authority to cast them into the Abyss and torture them. Jesus had to grant them permission to even leave his presence. They had to beg him not to punish them because he had authority as the last Adam to do what he wanted with the world and these demonic invaders. The same is true for the second coming. Everyone on that day will bow before Jesus. They won’t all do this out of love many will do it out of fear and awe knowing that he has the power to torture and end them.

Regarding worship, I believe it is a physical sign of submission to an authority not strictly God. If anyone or anything rightfully has authority over you, you should bow. I haven’t decided if it is “wrong” to bow to a man that has legitimate carnal authority over a person, such as a king, in our new covenant. However, in our current American self-Government of elected citizens it has no place.

Jesus Received Worship

Why I Reject the Trinity Part: 11

Luke 4:7, 8
“If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.”

This verse is apparently based on one or a harmonized version of both:

Deuteronomy 6:13
"Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.”

Deuteronomy 10:20
“Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name.”

With possibly:
1 Samuel 7:3
“And Samuel spake unto all the house of Israel, saying, If ye do return unto the LORD with all your hearts, [then] put away the strange gods and Ashtaroth from among you, and prepare your hearts unto the LORD, and serve him only: and he will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistines.”

In the Greek the word worship is proskyneō - to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence. It means to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence. It is used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank. In the Hebrew the word for worship - shachah is not found in Jesus’ source scripture however the meaning is the same, to bow down, prostrate oneself. Biblically, worship is a sign of reverence and recognition of someone else’s authority over the one bowing.

So, a common Trinitarian argument is as follows:
a. Jesus said men should only worship God.
b. Jesus received worship, therefore
a=b Jesus is the Trinitarian God.

Jesus did not say in this NT reference to “only worship God.” He said “worship the Lord” and “him only shall you serve.” Serve – latreuō: to serve, minister to, either to the gods or men and used alike of slaves and freemen. Bowing – shachah- to people in authority other than God is a practice throughout the entire bible. Gen 18:2, 19:1, 23:7,12, 37:7-10, 42:6, Ex 18:7, Joshua 5:13-15, Ruth 2:10, 13 times in 1 and 2 Samuel, as well as Kings, Chronicles, and throughout the Prophets.

People bowed down before Kings of Israel, men in authority, Joseph’s brothers in his visions and in Egypt. Even in one of Jesus’ parables:

Mathew 18:26
“The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.”

Recognizing whom bows to who in the Bible shows the authoritative chain of command, not specifically divinity. Everyone will bow to Jesus because he was born Lord of the earth and at his resurrection and ascension was made Lord over everything. Everyone bows to him that is except for the Father to whom Jesus is under and not equal to in rank. (1Corinthians 15:24-28)

PART 12

God Cannot Be Tempted

Why I Reject the Trinity Part: 10

The argument, that there is a difference between temptation and temptation, doesn’t really work. True temptation cannot be unless the desire is there to act on it. I am not tempted to burn myself because I have no internal desire to feel the pain in my body. (some people do) In order for Jesus to be tempted he had to have some form an internal desire or else temptation has not taken place. If temptation did not take place based on desire, then he didn’t “overcome” anything. It’s not sin for Jesus to desire an alternative to God’s plan. The point is that he overcame the desire with the words of God, Adam did not. The fundamental difference between willful submission and simply “God in flesh” is the existence of more than one internal desire. Without that conflict there can be no submission. Yet how does an internal distinctly non-God desire exist inside the Trinitarian Jesus?

Even when I held a Trinitarian view people would quote Hebrews 4:15 that he “was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.” I couldn’t help but say in my heart, “Yeah...Right! How could he possibly understand my temptation unless he had the desire to sin?” That is, to deviate from any step of God’s plan. If we view him as the last Adam, a man that had to hear and obey God by keeping his heart engaged with his spirit and not his flesh, then Heb 4:15 makes more sense and the definition of temptation in James is in harmony with Jesus.

James 1:14-15
“But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.”

It is not having the desire or lust that is sin. If Jesus did not counter his lust with the desire of God, it could and would have conceived and brought forth sin and then death. This is the biblical definition of temptation and it requires two things; the first is internal desire and the second is enticement. In order for Jesus to be tempted he needed both according to his half brother James. God, however, cannot be tempted because he has no internal desire toward flesh or against himself in anyway. Nor can he be enticed away from himself, “for God cannot be tempted by evil,” James 1:13. Yet, Jesus can be!?

Jesus then was the vehicle for the Father’s earthly ministry of reconciliation, and God was with us inside of him. He was the express image of the Father in every way yet distinctly other than Him. Therefore, his temptation and obedience is legitimate. He had personal human desires. Desires other than that of the Father’s at times, yet he submitted and did the Father’s will. He had much knowledge of the mind of the Father but he does not know everything that the Father knows.

PART 11

The "Temptation" of Christ (wink, wink)

Why I Reject the Trinity Part: 9

I believe my doctrine shows the love and struggle of Jesus more clearly. When he is speaking with the Father in the Garden of Gethsemane the “express image” shows the depth of their conversation. Jesus understood what the Father was telling him to do and he asks in desperation and full of emotion if there was any other way. As he realized there was not, he submitted to the will of the Father. In harmonious Trinity this conversation becomes…awkward. How could Jesus have any desire other than that of the Father? I would imagine a Trinitarian has an answer for this, theorizing about Jesus’ flesh and humanity, but I believe the logical and more natural answer fits better; a non-Trinitarian Jesus.

The actions of the Trinitarian Jesus in his ministry at times seem like a formality. For example in his temptation Satan offers him things and “tempts” him to submit. Have you honestly not read that and found it odd? How is there truly a legitimate temptation within the Trinity?
It would seem that this is just a façade; that Jesus goes through the motions of being “tempted,” (wink, wink) then speaks the word, and all is well. After all, how can God be tempted to act or be non-God? In Jesus’ case it would require great incentive or great ignorance of the negative consequences.

How is God enticed with incentive against his nature or ignorant of the consequences, to even momentarily consider anything other than His own plan? There are only two Trinitarian explanations I know of. First, perhaps Jesus though fully God was somehow mysteriously not completely privy to or understood the entire mind of the Father. This would seem to be in conflict with his being fully God while fully man. He would have to be something other than God in order to lack any God qualities or at least not fully God. Or else he would have to be hindered by his flesh from fully understanding his own true divine will. If his divine knowledge is hindered by his flesh, then we have another problem. How is he able to perfectly “submit” to his divinity if he does not fully and clearly perceive it?

A second possibility is that the temptation was only Satan’s work of proving Jesus. That is to say, Jesus at no time considered any action contrary to his own God nature but only expressed his internal divine desire and was therefore proven or exposed by Satan as God. Some argue this basic position trying to show a difference between external temptation (the natural desire of the flesh) and an internal temptation from your own “evil” desires. That one can, being God, have only godly internal desires yet the flesh (somehow unrelated to the internal desire) can still desire something other than God. Really?

PART 10

Box o' Nails

Why I Reject the Trinity Part: 8

One way that I have thought of the “express image” is to compare it with a pinpoint impression toy. Also, called a Box O’ Nails it is according to urbandictionary.com a, “grid or pan of needles (ranging from silver, to neon). When a hand or face or some other convex object is placed underneath, the needles rise to form an impression of said object.”

Symbolically I believe this is what Jesus was doing. This is how he was a precise reproduction in every respect. The Father showed himself to humanity through the body of Jesus; fully expressing Himself emotionally and logically in word and action.

Instead of seeing the distinction of the Father and the vehicle, Trinity blends the two. And by doing so it creates a paradox and confusion with many other verses. This teaching on the express image combined with the Elohim understanding clarifies and harmonizes most verses on both sides of the debate.

This is my third reason for rejecting the Trinity. I believe it convolutes the distinction between Jesus and the Father diminishing Jesus’ submission. Jesus’ ministry was not just God acting in flesh on his own and our behalf. His ministry was one of willful submission to the Father against his own natural desires. It was a passionate and glorious struggle. Jesus earned the name above all names. Through the law, he earned carnal right standing as the perfect Adam when we couldn’t. He is the firstborn of us, the brethren. Worthy is the Lamb!

PART 9

The Express Image

Why I Reject the Trinity Part: 7

Hebrews 1:3

“Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image (charaktēr- χαρακτήρ - engraving or carving, precise reproduction in every respect) of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;”

John 5:18-19
“Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.”

John 14:8-10
“Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, ‘Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.”

2 Corinthians 5:19
“God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.”

I believe that Jesus was the vessel or vehicle for the Father. Jesus willed himself to the Father as an earthsuit so the Father could access to our planet. (see THIS and THAT) The Father was literally inside of Jesus using his physical body to reconcile Himself (the Father) to the world. Jesus willfully submitted himself to this ministry of reconciliation even to death. He did not act or speak unless the Father told him to. He literally spoke on behalf of the Father and at times his mouth was speaking as the Father in first person. This is why people are confused about the words Jesus speaks. Not only in the sense of his dispensation of ministry but speaking as the Father. There were two distinct beings willing themselves into complete harmony. The Father was fully expressing himself physically and vocally through His son.

I've never raised or spent much time with horses but my wife has. She has grown up loving them, riding them, and winning competitions with them. When she talks about horses it is like a relationship that I don't quite understand. She would control this massive animal and make it do things that it would not naturally do. The horse had a desire of its own but it trusted and submitted to Carla (my wife) and because of that Carla was able to do things through the horse she could not have done on her own. In a very crude way this is how I view the co-ministry of the Father and Jesus.

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

I have heard this as a Trinitarian proof but you can’t take “The mighty God” without taking “The everlasting Father.” Is he the Trinitarian Son or the Father? Not only does this verse fail to harmonize with Trinity it in fact strengthens my point. The reason Jesus was called the everlasting Father and Immanuel – God with us, is not because he himself was the Father, but rather he was the vehicle for the Father. The Father was on earth inside Jesus, therefore God was truly with us. He was with us in Christ.

Those who saw Jesus saw the Father. Not because he is the Father but because he submitted himself to be the express image (charaktēr) of Him who was moving and speaking through our Lord. And the fullness of God was pleased to dwell in his body. (Colossians 1:19) That is to say God fully dwelled in something other than himself. They were in symbiosis.

PART 8

"the Father is greater than I" - Jesus

Why I Reject the Trinity Part: 6

Mark 13:32 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son but only the Father."

John 5:19 "Jesus gave them this answer: I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does."

John 14:28 "You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

John 17:20-23 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."

John 20:17 "Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

Acts 7:55-56 "But he (Stephen), being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God."

Colossians 1:15 "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation."

1Corinthians 15:24-28 "Then the end will come, when he (Jesus) hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all."

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

1Corinthians 8:5-6 "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 all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."

1Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"

Mark 12:29 “And Jesus answered him, the first of all the commandments [is], Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord.”

James 1:13 “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.”

Mathew 4:1 “Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.”

Hebrews 2:18 “For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.”

There are verses that really sound like Jesus is God and there are verses that really sound like he is not. I understand most Trinitarians would complete mental gymnastics around some of these verses in order to make them fit. My primary reason for rejecting Trinity is its’ conflict with the gospel. My second is that I don’t believe scripture requires the Trinity.

The Trinity doctrine is one that tries to marry a human/divine Jesus by creating an illogical conundrum. Jesus is both completely God and completely man at the same time. If the doctrine is challenged as nonsensical it’s then explained as a mystery of God only discernable by the spirit. I understand that until we leave these bodies we will never fully grasp God. But I believe there is a harmonious alternative to the Trinity.

PART 7

Trinity VS. the Gospel

Why I Reject the Trinity Part: 5

In Psalms 8:5 if you notice the difference among translations, the KJV says:
"For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels (Elohim), and hast crowned him with glory and honour."

If you don’t like the KJV the verse is also mentioned in the Book of Hebrews in Greek as angels,
Hebrews 2:7
“Thou madest him a little lower than the angels (aggelos); thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands”

So, allowing scripture to interpret scripture the New Testament translates the Old and claims that Elohim means the Father, men (Ps. 82:6) and now we see angels (Ps.8:5, Heb 2:7). These texts in my opinion are speaking of God family as opposed to an exclusive Trinity. I also find more harmony in God family with oneness, Spirit, Soul, and Body, as well as general natural reading of the text.

We can see that the creative Elohim of Genesis 1:26 clearly can include more meaning than the traditional view of a triune God. It includes men and angels, implying a heavenly host of God family. Also, the Hebrews had no intention of a plural form of Elohim to be seen as a three part deity. Now, understandably they could have been ignorant of this truth which God was revealing through them. Yet, to use the grammatical nature of a Hebrew word, in an attempt to negate the core Hebrew doctrine of Monotheism, seems a bit of a stretch.

The Bible does not claim that the creative Genesis 1 “us” is implying Trinity. I believe the Father was telling the heavenly hosts (Elohim) what he was going to do, and that they too have His image. I’m not implying that the hosts have creative power (I don’t know if they do or don’t) I’m saying they participated and gloried in the Father’s work. Just because man is made in the image of Elohim does not by default mean angels are not. As we saw previously angels are Elohim just as are we. We both share the image of Elohim with the Father.

I am not simply expanding the Trinity to include angels, heavenly beings, and men. I believe the core problem with the Trinity doctrine is that it doesn’t make proper distinction between Jesus, the Father, and us.

Is Jesus God? Yes, in Elohim nature, but not in the Trinitarian form. If we believe that one being is expressed in three persons then when Jesus does something it is also the Father and the Holy Spirit doing it by means of perfect agreement. Jesus’ actions are simply the current expression of that Triune being. If the Trinitarian Jesus rebukes you and is angry with you then the Father is rebuking and angry too.

Jesus says to the church, in Revelation 3:19 “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.” Yet in Isaiah 54:9 the Father is stating about our covenant to the church, “so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.”
How can this be? For those who understand the true gospel, how can “God” be completely reconciled, at peace, pleased, and not imputing sin; while at the same time irreconciled, angry, against men with a sword, and imputing sin? I don’t believe the Trinity doctrine is compatible with Paul’s gospel; this is my primary reason for rejecting it.

more gospel: HERE


PART 6

You and the Father are One

Why I Reject the Trinity Part: 4

It would seem from Psalm 82:6 that we are considered Elohim (god plural) and sons of the Most High. I don’t believe we are the Father but we are of Him. We were created with and from His nature and therefore part of the Elohim. I am just as much Elohim as Jesus or Yahweh, but I am not the person Yahweh. Now, born again, I am His son; just like Adam and Jesus. I am human flesh reborn with the nature of Elohim in my spirit. I am part of the Elohim heavenly family. However, my person is different from you, an angel, Jesus, and Yahweh.

So the first question that we should consider is what is a proper understanding of the word God?

2 Corinthians 5:17-18 (speaking of one’s born again spirit)
“Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things [are] of God..”

1 Corinthians 6:17
“But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.”

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

Romans 12:2
“And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind,”

Romans 8:29
“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.”

1 John 3:2
“Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.”

If we believe that our spirit is one spirit with Christ and it is literally the spirit of Christ in us, that we are being transformed into that image, and will be like him when we see him and receive a glorified and perfect body, then where do we draw the lines? At some point we have to make distinction within the Trinitarian view.

If Jesus is identical in God-likeness to the Father [therefore God], and my spirit is identical with Jesus [therefore God], when my new body perfectly sees and exudes Jesus how will I not be identical to him and the Father? How will I be different? Trinity has distinguished three personalities as co-equal while the rest of us are not. However, the Bible disagrees with this. Regarding oneness we are all one, not just Jesus and the Father. So what does this unity look like?

John 17:22-23
“That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one;”

I am one with Jesus in Elohim nature just as he is one with the Father. Joined unto him in one spirit. All those who are born again are one with the Father because we are now all children in the family of God.

Jesus himself distinguishes, in John 10:29-30, that the Father is greater than all, so how can he then say that he and the Father are one? Some say because they are one in Trinity, but that is basically my point. If God is our Father and we are one with him how are we also then not a member of the Triune Godhead as “God(s) in the flesh?” If one naturally reads these verses the God family makes more sense. The Father is above Jesus in rank, Jesus is above us and yet we are all one in Elohim nature.

PART 5

Humans are God

Why I Reject the Trinity Part: 3

“Let us make man in our image”
God

“The trinity doctrine, admitted by the Catholic Encyclopedia as unsupportable by either the Old Testament or New Testament, but only through "Christological speculation" severely corrupts the truth of the scriptures. Elohim, used 2,570 times throughout the scriptures refers to a plural family unit in the process of expanding. God considers individuals with His Spirit to be part of the Godhead already, in unity of purpose and ultimately in composition. Like the term "United States of America," considered as one unit or institution, the family of God or the kingdom of God is a singular unit ' consisting of many family members growing into the fullness of God.”

The Nature of God: Elohim, the God Family
John W. Ritenbaugh

This is my basic belief as well. As you read through the Bible you will find scriptures that speak of Him plural and singular. We perceive him talking to “himself” for instance regarding the tower of Babel, as if He needed the consultation.

Gen 11:7-8
“Come, let us go down there and confuse their language”

Maybe these are symbolisms to show the communion within a Trinity. Better yet, maybe they are anthropomorphisms for our inadequate human minds to try to understand God. Or, maybe He (Jehovah) is genuinely having discourse among the Elohim.

What would common sense tell us?
A. That the triune God in perfect communion and agreement within himself stops to have a chat with himself in order to tell himself, “let’s go down there.”
B. That a hierarchy of heavenly beings, the Elohim, talk with Yahweh and each other as different persons with different points of view and different levels of knowledge.

In a reference to the tower of Babel event found in Gen 11:8, some claim that because Jehovah is named as the one who scattered that he must have worked alone and therefore he is singular (Jehovah) and plural (Elohim) at the same time. Let’s consider that logic; for example in Gen 14:8 it talks about five kings that join battle in the vale of Siddim. Should we assume by this logic that five lone men joined in a war or that they brought their armies to fight? If the king of Sodom were to say “let us fight” would we assume that he was a plural yet singular being or that he had people with him?

In the family version of Elohim it allows for all things that come forth from Elohim to be “of God” yet not the very creator being “God” himself. Let’s be more specific. I believe the term God is misleading; since we see that we, humans, are also “god” (Elohim).

Psalm 82:6

"I said you are gods (Elohim), and all of you are sons of the Most High"

PART 4

Relationship with the "Trifecta"

Why I Reject the Trinity Part: 2

Some question the importance of pursuing this doctrine and deeper theology.
My belief is this: if God were present with us in some carnal form that our flesh could constantly perceive, then we could simply use our five senses to understand him and know him.

If a person truly does love Him and understands that the purpose of the Father’s reconciliation and Jesus’ ministry is simply for us to have eternal life (John 3:16); then we should receive and pursue that life.

John 17:3
“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”

Revelation knowledge is our only means to know Him better. Doctrines that do not expose God truthfully hinder our ability to understand and enjoy that relationship. In essence to accept a false doctrine about Jesus or the Father, or to not care to know if it’s true or misleading, is to disregard the ministry and desire of them both. How you think about God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit determines how you relate and respond to them.

If a person claims to love Jesus and the Father there is nothing else for them to do but pursue their truth and know them better. To reject the pursuit of knowing them is to reject eternal life and the core of their ministry. God gave his son to death so we could have eternal life, so we could know them.

PART 3

Lens

Why I Reject the Trinity Part: 1

“Many of the truths that we cling to depend on our point of view.” Obi-Wan Kenobi

There are many things to discuss in this teaching. First and foremost is lens.

Everyone one of us has a lens that we use to read the Bible and ancient text. Whenever two people talk about theology the conversation is rarely about the scriptural data it is about the lens we use to interpret that data. Things that Trinitarians believe are crystal clear, from my perspective, are not. Even if the decision regarding the Triune Jesus hinged on who could provide the longest list of ”irrefutable” verses we would not have an answer, we would only have a list and rhetoric.
The same is true for Liberals and Neo-Cons. They both look at the exact same data and draw two different conclusions. It is all lens.

The exclusive Trinitarian divinity of Jesus is a lens that most were raised with. These people never had a reason to reject it so it was never challenged. Now they read the Bible and see Trinity everywhere. We read Hebrew text, written by people who might stone you for Polytheism, and see plurality, therefore Trinity. It seems that most Trinitarians goal is to proof their theology with scripture. Rarely is the objective an unbiased pursuit of truth but rather a proof-texting for Trinitarianism. Believing this is the goal of most people, mine is now to disprove those proofs, offer a more cohesive lens, and explain my motivations for the non Trinitarian Jesus.

PART 2