Search This Blog

Friday, February 1, 2013

Thus Saith the Man – Volume 1: The Lord Gives and the Lord Takes Away


This is a great post by a friend of mine.  There is no point in reinventing the wheel so enjoy.  


[by Joel Grumblatt]

No matter what you believe about God, almost all of us have heard the phrase, “The Lord gives and the Lord takes away” at some point throughout our lives. This phrase is most commonly used at a funeral or burial service, alluding to the idea that God is both the giver and taker of life.

While no sensible Christian would object to the first part of this statement (“the Lord gives”), is God really the one who is responsible for taking lives?

In order to answer this question, we must first go to the source from where this phrase originates, which is found in what most Bible scholars agree to be the oldest book of the Bible: The Book of Job. In verses 20-21 of Chapter 1, it reads, “Then Job arose, and rent his mantle, and shaved his head, and fell down upon the ground, and worshipped, And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.”

The context surrounding this verse is the catastrophic aftermath of a conversation between God and Satan, in which all of Job’s children, servants and livestock are tragically killed all at once. The apparent assumption here made by Job is that God is the one responsible for this tragedy – those who were “taken away”.

Unlike us as readers, Job wasn’t privy to the back-story behind his terrible circumstances, not knowing that it was actually Satan who was the cause.

“But wait a minute,” I can hear you say, “didn’t God agree to let Satan do this to Job? Didn’t God allow it? And if so, isn’t God at least partly responsible?”

Let’s look at the verse in question. Job 1:12 says, “And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath [is] in thy power…”

In order to interpret this correctly, we have to remember the condition of mankind at this point in time. God initially gave all authority over the earth to Adam and Eve, which they eventually yielded to Satan when they believed his lie and ate from the forbidden tree. Since Jesus had not yet been sent to redeem mankind from sin and death at this point, Satan – “the god of this world” [II Cor. 4:4] – had authority over the earth. So when God said to Satan, “Behold, all that he hath is in thy power,” He was simply acknowledging Satan’s authority and access to Job. After all, what was Job’s response to the situation?

“For the thing which I greatly feared is come upon me, and that which I was afraid of is come unto me.” [Job 3:25]

Here we see Satan’s inroad to Job: Fear.

Now, what about a New Covenant believer? What is our position with Satan? After his resurrection, Jesus said, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” [Matt. 28:18] Further, Paul stated in Romans 8:2, “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.”

We have power over sin and death through Jesus!

So then, why would God co-labor with man so diligently for 4,000 years in order to bring about the plan of salvation through the sacrifice of his son Jesus in order for us to have victory over sin and death – if He was, in fact, the author of death? The same point can be made about sickness, poverty, fear, depression, or anything else that was brought into the world through sin, which Jesus himself atoned for on the cross.

I find it peculiar that, out of all of the statements that Job makes in this book from his own limited perspective, many Christians have honed in on this one statement and have made an entire doctrine out of it. “God’s got your number.”

I was at a Bible study recently where we were praying for the local family of an 8-year-old boy who had fallen over dead while playing outside one day. The mood in the room was very somber; one of the women, while sobbing, prayed something like this: “Lord, we don’t know why you would take an innocent little 8-year-old boy like that…”

I believe this is one of the biggest lies that the enemy has tricked us into believing. There’s even a popular worship song today that ignorantly quotes Job, and sings of God, “You give and take away”.

Sorry, Matt Redman – you’re a nice guy and I like many of your songs – but, NO HE DOESN’T!

The fact is that death was never God’s idea. Have we so easily forgotten that WE are the ones who brought death into this world? Jesus makes this very clear: “The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have [it] more abundantly.” [John 10:10]

“Sure,” some of you are thinking, “but what about Hebrews 9:27, where it says that it is appointed unto man once to die? Doesn’t that mean that God picks and chooses a time for each of us to die?”

NO! In this scripture, Paul is simply acknowledging that all of us will die at some point in our earthly bodies, as this part of our being has not yet been redeemed.

Essentially, there are only two conditions under which we will die: willingly, or due to a lack of knowledge. A willing death can either be a martyr (such as Peter) or one who is simply old in years and is ready to ”give up the ghost” to go be with the Lord. I honestly believe that anyone who dies without meeting these conditions – whether it be by sickness, murder, or some sort of “accident” – has died before their time, lacking revelation of their victory over Satan, their adversary.

But this is hard for many people to deal with. It seems “easier” for them to blame God for someone’s death rather than to humble themselves and come to grips with their own ignorance. What a heretical cop-out!

Here’s the fallout from believing this lie:

James 1:5-8 says, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all [men] liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. A double minded man [is] unstable in all his ways.”

If you hold to the idea that God “has your number” and will decide when you die, or that He was responsible for “taking” a loved one from you, why would you be able to trust Him with anything else? God has already given us all of the promises and provision that we could ever want or need in this life. But if we’re double minded about His true nature and character – if we don’t trust Him – we are unstable and will not be positioned to receive anything from Him.

God, forgive us for believing this lie about You. For those of you reading this, I pray that this liberates you to assure your heart and to know that God loves you, has come to give you life, and is for you – not against you!

[Note: Inevitably, some of you are already referencing examples in the Old Testament where God did directly take the lives of people, such as Sodom and Gomorrah, the flood, etc. While I’m not going to take the time to fully explain this here, I don’t believe that this contradicts anything that I have stated, as God was still operating in mercy towards man throughout these instances. Remember, from the time of the fall of man until the birth of Jesus, God was co-laboring with man in order to bring about His plan for salvation through his Son. When God destroyed a group of people in the Old Testament, it was done as a last resort and only for the sake of preserving His plan of redemption. In the days of Noah, for example, men’s hearts were constantly bent towards evil and they had no hope of being redeemed. Had God continued to allow evil to spread, there wouldn’t have been a virgin left for Jesus to have been born through, and humanity would be utterly hopeless!]


The Truth Will Set You Free




Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good People: Part 6


So, why do bad things happen to good people?
We've allowed the world to be a place where bad things happen.  
God is the one who has empowered us to change it.  The enemy comes to kill, steal, and destroy.  So, if you hold to the “Sovereignty Myth” you will, at some point, have to believe God is the enemy.  That somehow he killed,  stole, or destroyed something in your life because it was his will.  

But Josh the Lord gives and he takes away.  Haven't you heard that song before?  
Actually I have heard the song and though it is catchy it's not one that I will be singing any time soon.  In fact one of my best friends wrote a great response to this idea, HERE.  You should check it out.

I’m not going to get into a long list of bible verses on this one.  Either this seed will grow or you are not ready for it.  Every bible verse is read with a lens.  If you have some nagging verse in your mind, try to view it through this lens and see if it fits better.

My doctrine is not about using your brain to figure out God.  It is about allowing the Holy Spirit to reveal truth to you.  So ask him.  If you are able to hear from the Spirit, he will guide you in all truth.  This truth has set me free.  It has set me free from:

-          theological separation with God
-          blaming God for “allowing things to happen”
-          misunderstanding Jesus’s authority as a man
-          being robbed of my authority as a man
-          apathy as the body of Christ

Follow peace on this subject. 


Thursday, January 31, 2013

Raise the Dead



 Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good People: Part 5




The Sovereignty myth not only affects the way we view God, but it also affects how we function as his body. 

We believe God “can heal” if he really wants to, then spend our time on prayer chains or whatever other waste of time church practice.  We try to twist God’s arm into taking action on the earth.  We organize meetings to call down heaven, as if our numbers or desperation would move God’s heart.

Don’t lie – you’ve done it.  It makes sense.  Clearly if God can do anything and He currently isn’t doing what we know is good, then we must really “press in” and change His heart until He concedes that this particular healing, revival, or whatever is worthy of His power.  Right?

We would never word it that way in church, but isn’t that what’s really happening?
If there is a sick person in front of you, and you prayed an “if it be thy will” prayer, but they are still sick, then…well, it must be God’s will.  

Remember that New Testament verse where Jesus said, “Go to a sick person and ask me to heal them”?  Me neither.  It sounded more like, “Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils” almost like men had authority.  That Jesus, always talking crazy…

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

The Sovereign God Kills Babies





Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good People: Part 4


This doctrine warps our view of God.  It makes him seem like a cold being that sits on a throne indifferent to the problems of earth.  After all, how can God really feel our pain if He is the one who caused it – right?

The Sovereign God kills babies, rapes little boys, murders people in mass, elevates radical dictators and everything in between all for his mysterious and glorious purpose.  
If you truly believe in a view of Sovereignty you need to be consistent and go all the way over to Calvinism - Reformed Theology.  Most people want to have their cake and eat it too on this topic; they want a completely “Sovereign God” that somehow allows for some form of free will.   The only way that can make sense is…well, to just not think about it.

I think the reason people get so upset about my challenging this doctrine is that they feel:  1. It diminishes God.  2. They already believe something else and change is difficult.  3.  They belong to a group that believes in Sovereignty. 

1.       Does it really?  Think about that one.  Just because Sovereignty sounds like a big and glorious term to describe God, I don’t believe it does.  I believe God created an entire realm for us and gave us the keys.  We locked ourselves in and unleashed some bad stuff.  I think God spent 2,000 years desperately trying to get back in to save his kids; and He did it.  That is pretty glorious to me.
2.       Change can always be difficult.  I would much rather go through life pursuing what is truth rather than what is common place.  Just because my doctrine requires change, don’t let your flesh dismiss it.
3.       Who cares?  Your group is wrong.  Most groups are.



PART 5

Friday, December 21, 2012

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

Thursday, December 20, 2012

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

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

“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

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

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.

Thursday, April 19, 2012

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.

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

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?

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

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.

Monday, April 16, 2012

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)

Thursday, April 12, 2012

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.

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

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…

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

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.

Friday, April 6, 2012

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.

Thursday, April 5, 2012

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;”

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

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.)

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

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.

Thursday, March 22, 2012

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