Extracts from Focus on the Kingdom - May, 2011

Extracts from Focus on the Kingdom - May, 2011

... The Gospel of the Kingdom is to resound to the far corners of the globe. Only then, Jesus said, can "the end come." Only "when  this [well-known to the NT] Gospel  of the Kingdom has been preached everywhere, internationally" can the end come (Matt. 24:14). Christians are called "disciples of the Kingdom" in Matthew 13:52.

There will be one single Parousia, and Paul described it as the event at which the saints living at the time, or sleeping in death (Ps. 13:3; Dan. 12:2; 1 Thess. [5:10]) will be caught up to meet
the Lord Jesus, to escort the royal personage as he heads towards the earth (1 Thess. 4:13ff.). "Whether we are sleeping or awake [at his coming] we will live together with him" (1 Thess. [5:10]). In order to begin to live with him at his return, we must be dead before that time! As in Daniel 12:2, and as in the case of the dead, sleeping Lazarus, resurrection always means the coming back to life of formerly dead persons. ...

Hal Lindsay has caused a considerable confusion by forgetting that that great event in 1 Thessalonians  4 is called by Paul the Parousia, (i.e. THE Second Coming), and there is no other [coming] 
(1 Thess. 4:15). Jesus gathers the saints as he said, "immediately  after [post] the tribulation of those days" (Matt. 24:29-31). And Christians, Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 1:6-8, must expect affliction and trouble until "the Lord Jesus Christ is revealed in flaming fire taking vengeance on his enemies." That is not secret event. Paul could not have written this if he expected  a relief from suffering 7 years earlier! Nor would Jesus advise fleeing to the hills, if "lift-off" is promised.

Although Harold Camping of Family Radio says that the end of the world will occur on May 21, he will be proved wrong very soon, after selling lots of books, as he also did in the 80's with another failed prediction. ... The SDA's were sure that 1844 was the Second Coming and JW's knew that 1914 was the date! But the mathematics behind these failed prophecies are now seen to be quite unintelligent!

...

 

Jesus' Long-Form Birth Certificate Released by Luke and Matthew, 2000 Years Ago

... Some of the public seem terribly exercised about the right of President Obama to be in office. The issue is where was he born? Where is he from? The public seems unconcerned about the angel Michael-Jesus (promoted by 7 million JW's) or the God-Jesus offered them by standard forms of the faith, propagated weekly by the slogan that Jesus IS God. How many YHVH's does that make, since the Father is certainly Yahweh? Sounds like two, which is one too many. Matthew provides basic information about the ORIGIN of Jesus, genesis of Jesus. This is not just his birth, but his origin. Who was Jesus originally? We can know about the origin and the birth certificate of Jesus by reading Luke and Matthew. 

The JW's invited us recently to take part in the celebration of their annual Passover, and their tract told us that Jesus "came down from heaven" as a transformed angel. What they did not say was that "every good gift comes down from heaven" (James 1:17; 3:15). What they did not say is that Jesus said his "flesh, which is bread, came down from heaven" (John 6:51). Is this not obviously non-literal language?

 

...

Who is the Blessed Seed of Abraham?

... The golden key verse in Galatians 3:29 :- "if we are biblical Christians, we are reckoned as Abraham's children (seed) and are thus heirs to the promises." This verse is a backbone to NT theology and when neglected or rejected leads to the collapse of much of NT theology. Without this text firmly in place all sorts of chaos results. Some lost track of Galatians 3:29 when they misapplied "I will bless those who bless you" to the  physical descendants of Abraham. But that is to misunderstand Galatians 3. The Christian concern is not with the politics of this age. Galatians 3:29 defines who for the moment are the true seed of Abraham. Jesus spent a lot of his time trying to persuade hostile Jews that unless they accepted him as Messiah they no longer counted as the true people of God. The time is coming, Hosea says, that Israel, now reckoned as "not My people" (Hos. 1: 9-10) will one day repent and be restored. But that has not happened yet.

I personally find verses like Matthew 19:28 and Galatians 3:29 absolutely thrilling as well as humbling. Imagine that! We, whoever we are in terms of national background, are now honored by the great God with the status of Abraham's sons and daughters, because we have believed and obeyed the unique and final agent of God, the Lord Messiah Jesus (Luke 2:11). And if we are now constituted the children of Abraham then we are going to inherit the very promises made to Abraham and to Jesus. "The promise to Abraham," we remember, was that "he would inherit the world" (Rom. 4:13). Sounds awfully like the almost entirely ignored saying of Jesus that the meek are going to  inherit  the earth (quoting about 6 passages in Ps. 37). And Matthew 19:28 spells out in the plainest terms the role of the Apostles in  the future Kingdom on earth, when Jesus comes.

Dispensationalism which underlies most American "fundamentalist" churches has given away the promise of Matthew 5:5 to unconverted Jews and thus robbed true Christians of their inheritance and Abraham's. The meek will inherit the land - not "go to heaven." Unconverted Jews must accept the Messiah who has come, in order to inherit the land and be true children of Abraham.

The Second Coming and Christian Destiny

... Yes, indeed, Jesus is coming visibly. He is really coming back. But the NIV gets it all wrong when it says that Jesus went  back to heaven at the ascension (John 13:3; 16:28; 20:17). ...

The Second Coming is not a "drive through" by which the Messiah swoops down in the clouds only to do a U-turn and disappear again into heaven. That would not be a Second Coming at all. This non-second coming would mean that 23 million SDA's are right (and I fear they have been misled here on a large scale), when they say that only the Devil will be on earth for a 1000 years. It is the Devil who does not want Jesus back on earth. That will be the time when he is bound and imprisoned not on earth but in the abyss, and his crippling present "deceiving of the whole world" (Rev. 12:9) will come to a screeching halt (Rev. 20:3).

It is fascinating to me that A.T. (not J.A.T.) Robertson in his famous word pictures (available with BibleWorks software) says that it is unclear what Jesus meant in Matthew 19:28. Unclear? Jesus had just been asked the worthy question by Peter: "What can we expect to receive as reward at the end of this titanic struggle against the forces of popular religion? What's in it for us?" Jesus was fully responsive and certainly not rebuking with his forthright answer. "Let me tell you on the authority of the God I serve, Amen, amen I tell you: at the rebirth of the world, when the Son of Man sits on his throne of glory, you too will be seated on 12 thrones to administer the 12 tribes of Israel."

How many sermons are you hearing on these shatteringly interesting words of Jesus? My impression is that in church people would just like to think that Jesus died and rose, but not much else in the teaching of Jesus seems to get the sort of publicity it deserves. This text of course is repeated in Luke 22[:29-30] where the new administration, with the 12 tribes regathered in the land, is said to be the core of the New Covenant. The apostles are promised seats at the dinner table with Messiah! And positions of administrative responsibility with Messiah.

Acts 1:6 arises out of this major topic of course. "Is this the time for you to restore the Kingdom to Israel?" This is the question, I remind you, and do tell all your friends, where Calvin commented, "There are more errors in that question [about the restored national sovereignty to Israel] than there are words." About 16 errors! ...

"Jewish Roots"

Much time has been wasted on a false attempt to get at the Jewishness of Jesus in areas where no challenge to mainstream is necessary. I mean the emphasis by some on the Jewish calendar and especially the claim that the fourth commandment is now binding on us all in the letter. 

The NT seems quite content with the use of "Lord" (Kurios) for God and, as Joe Martin points out, stresses the use of "Father," now that the Son has come. This is the wonderful new thing in the New Covenant. The NT actually takes the  idea of the name of YHVH, "the one who is and was and is to come," and puts it into Greek for us in Revelation 1:4, 8; 4:8; 11:17; 16:5.

What is not always noted is that when Jesus is called "lord" (following the adoni, "my lord," of Ps. 110:1), the Greek very frequently has the definite article "the Lord (Jesus)." When Kurios is without the article it very often (not invariably) designates the LORD GOD (Kurios, Yahweh). One cannot say "the Yahweh," or "my Yahweh." It is a proper name.

...

Then the important issue of the future and final restoration of national Israel (Rom. [Chs.] 9-11).  "The deliverer will come and remove ungodliness from JACOB."

Paul has "great sorrow about my natural kinsmen, who are  Israelites" (not the church). Happily there presently is an Israel not limited to physical Israel, i.e. true believers, the Israel of God of Galatians 6:16, the true circumcision, which is us (Phil. 3:3; Gal. 3:29, as distinct from the "Israel of the flesh" (1 Cor. 10:18). The real international children of Abraham are now drawn from both Jews and Gentiles, via Isaac and Sarah, and the promises. The children of the flesh are not currently the same as the Israel of the spirit. The New Covenant has included us all, Americans, Brits, Australians and people of every nation in the true people of God, what Paul calls the "true circumcision" (Phil. 3:3).

Then Paul goes on: The Gentiles not pursuing righteousness attained the right way and Israel (i.e. Israelites) seeking it with Law did not. My prayer is for THEIR salvation (not the church). They (not the church) have a zeal for God but without the right knowledge. Israel knew, but did not respond. "I stretched forth my hand to a disobedient and obstinate people" (not the church).

There is currently a remnant, however; the rest (not the church) are hardened and are enemies of the Gospel. They do not now count as God's true people. If they do not continue in hardness they can be grafted in again. A partial hardening has happened to them (not the church) UNTIL the full quota of Gentiles has come in and so "all Israel," the ones now partially hardened, will be saved:
i.e. "blindness will be removed from Jacob." From the point of view of the Gospel THEY (not the church) are enemies for your (the church's) sake. So now, in the "now" of that future, they will be shown mercy.

This leads to Matthew 19:28 and Acts 1:6 and Micah 2:5 and Isaiah 19. Here we have whole nations who are God's people, a thing impossible today since the kingdoms of this world are not yet the Kingdom of God.

Denominations

It is interesting to challenge audiences with the rather bewildering state of disagreement by major blocs of those claiming to believe: How did the Watchtower Society manage to convince millions that Jesus is Michael the archangel? In Hebrews 1 there are two passages which absolutely exclude the idea that Jesus was ever an angel. Listen! "Jesus is  far superior to the angels, for to which one of the angels did God ever say 'You are my Son; Today I have begotten you'?" [Heb. 1:5] Then, "To which one of the angels did God ever say, 'Sit at my right hand till I make your enemies your footstool'?" (Heb. 1:13). To no angel did God ever say the things he said only to his SON, Jesus. Very convincing also is the fact that Michael is said to be "one of the chief angels" (Dan. 10:13). One of a category of archangels. Jesus is not  one of any category. Jesus is unique in his category as the sole Messiah, Son of David, of God and of Mary. JW's claim to be "one of Jehovah's Witnesses" - and they mean just that. Show them then that Jesus cannot be "one of the archangels." He cannot therefore be Michael. Anyway a holy angel is immortal, and so Michael could not have died for the sins of the world as the Son of God who died!

How is it that 1 billion people, not more nor less intelligent than ourselves, can believe that Mary was sinless, that she never had normal relations with her husband and was taken physically to heaven at death? That she and other "saints" respond to the lighting  of candles and to prayer?

How do you get 23 million SDA's to believe that when the millennium comes the earth will be vacated of human beings and only Satan will remain on the earth? You achieve this amazing feat when a single lady, Ellen G. White persuaded them all that she was "more than a prophetess." But did anyone note what she did with Isaiah 24:6 which states that after a vast depopulation of the world effected by the Day of the Lord, the great and terrible day of the LORD's wrath, "few men are left." Ellen White, if you will look at her tome  The Great Controversy  (p. 769), you will find that she simply left out the words "few men are left" in Isaiah 24:6. This persuaded her millions of followers of an empty earth for 1000 years. She also predicted the Second Coming for 1844, and when it did not happen, she constructed a theory which stated that a special new event happened in heaven in that year. Later SDA scholars who challenged this were dismissed.

... 

Do Evangelicals Preach the Gospel?

Following Steve Katsaras' challenging and radical appeal for belief in the right Jesus and not a threatening "another Jesus," may I ask kindly a similar radical question?

I start with a fascinating quote from the mammoth three-volume tome by G.N Peters, The Coming Kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I am still thrilled and impressed with one of his opening statements:

"The New Testament begins the announcement of the Kingdom in terms expressive of its being previously well-known...The preaching of the Kingdom, its simple announcement, without the least attempt to explain its meaning and nature, the very language in which it was conveyed to the Jews - all presupposed that it was a subject familiar to all. John the Baptist, Jesus and the Seventy all proclaimed the Kingdom in a way without definition or explanation that indicated that their hearers were acquainted with its meaning" (Vol. 1:181).

The Testimony of John the Baptist and Jesus to the Kingdom of God

"Jesus frequently appealed to the Old Testament as a divine revelation whose meaning he and his audience held, or ought to hold, in common ["If you misunderstand the OT you will automatically misunderstand the New."]

Moses, according to Jesus, had written about the Messiah. But if one were not prepared to believe what Moses wrote, it would be impossible to believe what Jesus said (John 5:46-47). After the resurrection Jesus chided the disciples for their failure to grasp what the prophets had spoken (Luke 24:25-27). This implies that what the prophets wrote was intelligible. There existed already clear evidence of the trustworthiness and factuality of the prophets' predictions. Micah had predicted the birthplace of the Messiah. Isaiah had foreseen the Messiah's activity as a miracle worker and healer (Isa. 35:5-6)." (Micah had predicted the details of the origin of the Messiah as being from ancient times. The translation "from everlasting" in the KJV is very misleading.)

Peters again: "The meaning Jesus attached to the word Kingdom of God can only have been the meaning given to that phrase in the Old Testament. If another concept were intended by 'Kingdom of God,' some explanation would be required at the beginning of John the Baptist's ministry to avoid misunderstanding. The facts are that John makes his announcement of the Kingdom on the presumption that his audience knew what the Kingdom was. They reacted by coming to John for baptism. They could not have done this in the absence of information about what the Kingdom was."

Jesus spoke to Israel, to whom the oracles of God had been entrusted (Rom. 3:1-2), and according to Paul he came to confirm the promises made to the fathers (Rom. 15:8; Acts 13:32). The Kingdom was itself the subject of the divine promise as "the kingdom which God has promised to those who love Him" (James 2[:5]). It is impossible therefore that Jesus could have opened his ministry in Galilee by announcing the Kingdom of God in any sense other than that which was intelligible to himself and his audience.

Now what was that sense? Though the phrase "Kingdom of God" does not appear exactly in that form in the Hebrew Bible, the idea is so ubiquitous that John Bright declares that the whole Bible might rightly be called the book about the coming Kingdom.

A locus classicus for defining the Kingdom of God is 1 Chronicles 28. King David addressed an assemblage of officials declaring that God had chosen him to be king over Israel forever (1 Chron. 28:4). Likewise God had selected Solomon to sit on the throne of the Kingdom of the LORD [YAHWEH] over Israel [1 Chron. 28:5]. Solomon was duly crowned king of the united kingdom of Israel. They "anointed him as ruler for the LORD [YAHWEH]" (1 Chron. 29:22), whereupon "he sat on the throne of the LORD [YAHWEH] as king in the place of David his father; and he prospered and all Israel obeyed him." [1 Chron. 29:23] Subsequently Abijah succeeded to the throne of Judah and when confronted with the opposing armies of Israel under Jeroboam, he reminded the latter that "the LORD [YAHWEH] God of Israel gave the rule over Israel to David forever and his sons by a  covenant of salt" (2 Chron. 13:5). It would therefore be unwise for Jeroboam to "resist the Kingdom of the LORD [YAHWEH] in the hands of the sons of David" (2 Chron. 13:8).

There can be no doubt that the Kingdom of the LORD [YAHWEH] means the Kingdom administered by the royal house of David. It still means that. The Davidic covenant had named the Davidic throne as the Kingdom of God when Nathan had said to David, "I will settle him [David's descendant] in my house and in my Kingdom forever and his throne shall be established forever"
(1 Chron. 17:14).

The Kingdom of God therefore meant the empire ruled by the dynasty of David over Israel in the promised land. Its capital was Jerusalem, and it functioned on behalf of God Himself and could therefore be called both God's Kingdom and David's Kingdom.

The political and territorial nature of the kingdom is made clear in numbers of other significant passages in the Hebrew Bible. The prophet Obadiah describes the Kingdom of the LORD as a time when Israel rules over former enemies. The supremacy of Israel is achieved when "deliverers ascend Mount Zion to judge [in the Hebraic sense "administer"] the mountain of Esau, and the Kingdom will be the LORD's [YAHWEH's]" (Obad. 21). Again the political and territorial character of the Kingdom of God is crystal clear. So it is in Daniel 2:44 where "the God of Heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these other [preceding] kingdoms and it will itself endure forever."
This empire is further described as a time when "the saints will possess the kingdom and all kingdoms and dominions will serve them" (Dan. 7:22, 27). It is located "under the whole heaven"
[Dan. 7:27].

Kingdom data appears in equally unambiguous terms in Isaiah 16:5: "A throne will be established in lovingkindness and a judge will sit on it in faithfulness in the tent of David." Micah's Messianic prediction foresees a time coming when "the LORD [YAHWEH] will reign over Israel in Mount Zion...Even the former dominion will come, the Kingdom of the daughter of Jerusalem" (Micah 4:7-8). It is a well-known fact that the Targums [Jewish commentary] elucidate these passages with the paraphrase: "The Kingdom of God will be revealed." Zechariah forecasts that the Messiah will "speak peace to the nations and his dominion will be from sea to sea, and from the River [Euphrates] to the ends of the earth." [Zec. 9:10] Sounds very much like the promise of the One God, the Father to His Son: "Ask me and I will give you the ends of the earth as your inheritance." [Psa 2:8]

Two further passages are of prime importance for establishing the  territorial and political nature of the Kingdom as well as its thoroughly spiritual dimension as a kingdom initiated by Yahweh Himself. In Isaiah 40[:5] "the glory of the LORD [YAHWEH] is to be revealed." This will mean the evangelization of the cities of Zion when the Lord GOD [Lord YAHWEH] "will come with might with his arm ruling for him." [Isaiah 40:10] Once again the Targum recognizes in these events the revelation of the Kingdom of God. Zephaniah reports that following a period of severe judgment, and beyond the Day of the LORD, "the King of Israel, the LORD [YAHWEH], will be in their midst." [Zeph. 3:15] Zion is comforted with the promise that the LORD will be present as a victorious warrior (Zeph. 3:17). The LORD [YAHWEH] of course will be there in the presence of His unique Son the returning Jesus.

Finally in Isaiah 52:7 there is a passage saturated with Gospel and Kingdom terminology. The announcement is made to Zion that "Your God reigns," resulting in the restoration of Zion and the comfort and redemption of Jerusalem (Isa. 52:8-9, just what the NT saints were expecting). The Kingdom thus established is viewed by "all the nations" (Isa. 52:10). Appropriately the Targum sees in these events the setting up of the Kingdom of God. The phrase "your God reigns" or more accurately "your God has assumed kingship" marks a definite new era of history  on earth. There is nothing abstract about the kingdom, nor is the eternal sovereignty of God the subject of these grand prophecies. It is rather a political event marking the intervention of the deity to take control of the Kingdom by installing His ruler as head of a theocracy in Jerusalem. The basis of the concept is found in the Davidic covenant which anticipates a descendant, a member of the House of David presiding over the kingdom in the promised land. Compare Psalm 96[:10]: "The LORD [YAHWEH] has assumed his kingship." He has begun to reign in a way in which he has not yet ever done. Exactly as Revelation 11:15-18 predicts that at the 7th trumpet, the moment when the now sleeping dead return to conscious existence, the LORD [YAHWEH] and His Messiah will begin to reign (the aorists are ingressive, meaning that the action begins).

In view of this mass of convergent evidence it must be plain that when Jesus announced the Kingdom of God, he did not need to tell his audience that there was going to be such a thing. It is surprising that commentaries have not made the political, territorial and national aspects of the Kingdom God known to readers. It must be clear that Jesus was not talking into the air when he announced the near approach of the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom was something deeply embedded in the national consciousness of Israel and unambiguously defined by the Hebrew text and Targums. What has severely hampered understanding of the nature of the Kingdom of God is the well-worn theory that Jesus must have been speaking of a spiritual and not a political and geographical kingdom.

A Jew might legitimately object that a kingdom managed by the anointed Messiah ruling in Jerusalem is utterly spiritual. It is both spiritual and political, both national and universal. The fallacy of so much commentary and unexamined church tradition has been to set spiritual against political as though these are mutually exclusive ideas. However in Scripture this is not the case. A prophecy which spelled out the geographical place on earth at which the Messiah was to be born (Micah 5:2) was no less spiritual than the prophecy of his suffering for the sins of the world (Isa. 53). The prophecy which announced the conception of the Messiah from a virgin was equally and thoroughly spiritual, though related to a particular Israelite virgin living in a specific location and an exact time in history, 6 months later than the conception of John the Baptist.

It cannot be reasonably argued that Jesus meant anything by Kingdom of God in Mark 1:14-15 than his heritage had transmitted to him. Only on that basis  can his opening gospel salvo have been intelligible. Only on that simple basis can he not have wiped out OT Scripture! There is a mass of New Testament evidence to corroborate the local, geographical and political nature of the Kingdom. Two passages in Luke tie the kingdom to geography. There was an occasion during the ministry of Jesus near Jerusalem that his audience thought that the kingdom would appear immediately. 
[Luke 19:11-27] Of course, the King was in the proximity of the Kingdom's capital city, the city of the great King. Their conception of the Kingdom as having its capital in the holy land was absolutely right. Now Jesus did not correct this expectation. The parable he gave was to clarify the fact that the Kingdom would not appear  immediately. He taught that there was to be an interval during which he as Messiah would be absent. During that time he would acquire his right to rule in the Kingdom. He would then return to rule in the Kingdom, dealing at that time with opponents who resisted his royal authority. Jesus would then be in the position of judge and would be authorized to "slay his enemies" who did not want the Messiah to rule over them! A shattering warning for us all.

Luke reports also that Jesus expected that many would arrive from east, west, north and south and join the resurrected patriarchs in the Kingdom of God (Matt. 8:11; Luke 13:28-29). The picture would naturally evoke in the minds of those familiar with the Hebrew Bible the Messianic banquet described by Isaiah 25:6-7 as a dinner including fine wines. The banquet was to take place "on this mountain," that is, in Jerusalem.

All this may be obvious to Abrahamically trained people, but it is certainly not clear in the various evangelical circles I have recently encountered. All I heard about was "heaven." The political and territorial nature of the Kingdom is absent from that "heaven" Gospel. The question is, how far can one misdefine the Kingdom of God and still count the resultant message the true Gospel?

Might not Jesus say to churches today, "You are gravely mistaken, not knowing the Scripture nor the power of God"? Jesus had just explained to them the rather elementary fact that since God is the God of the living and since it was well recognized that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were still dead and buried, then that future blessed resurrection was the  only way that the faithful dead could be reunited in one glorious throng ready to take up their positions in the Kingdom. 

Bishop [N. Tom] Wright for all his skills and talents still does not get this right! He speaks of the resurrection as  "life after life after death." But then curious blindness leads him to tell us that the Parousia in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 happened in AD 70!

All this about the Kingdom and the Gospel, I think we need to be reminded, is not just "eschatology." It is the throbbing and life-giving heart of the saving Gospel as Jesus and Paul preached it. The cry still goes out from the risen Messiah: "Repent and believe the Gospel of the Kingdom" (Mark 1:14-15). "I must preach the Gospel of the Kingdom of God: that is why God sent me" (Luke 4:43). That cry is summarized in the Great Commission to baptize everyone everywhere who will respond to the Gospel as Jesus and Paul preached it. The command to baptize is not an optional extra! It is part of the handful of very simple and basic commands. Peter is insistent that even after Gentiles had received the spirit they be baptized in water. Who can prevent the water? he asks. [Acts 10:47-48] 

... Baptism in water is one of those very basic simple NT teachings, practiced by Jesus, John, Paul and Peter. It is a NT given, not open to question, if words have plain meanings. ...
("Who can forbid the water…?")

... The 1000 years - I would urge us all to be able to defend the truth of the millennium with passion and excitement. It might be good to not get excessively overheated about  an immediate second coming. Adventists have a record over the past centuries of "knowing that world events show that Jesus is bound to come almost immediately." This of course never means that we should be asleep. We should be "always abounding in the work of the Lord" (1 Cor. 15:58).

We should pay attention too to both Jesus' and Paul's warnings that certain events must happen first. I suggest that the Markan "When you see the Abomination of Desolation standing where HE ought not to" (the RV corrected the KJV as early as 1881) was the main sign Jesus gave of the impending end. He was asked, "What will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?" There is a single Antichrist figure (1 John 2:18), whom Jesus slays with the breath of mouth at his coming in  2 Thessalonians 2:8. This figure for Paul is traced to Isaiah 11:4 where the King of Assyria is the expected final tyrant. The Beast in Revelation is also seen as a HE, a single person, when John gives him a masculine pronoun in Revelation 17:11 and 13:14 (the word for Beast is actually neuter, so John is making a special point here, as Mark in Mark 13:14: "the abomination standing where HE ought not to"). The Beast/Abomination is a person, just as that wicked person comes to "his end" (Dan. 9:26b) in the final and decisive destruction brought by God in Jesus.

Father and Son

As [Biblical] unitarians I think we have to be careful to remain both Father and Son centered. Paul thanked Jesus for putting him in ministry and Jesus was worshiped not as God but
as the human lamb. ... Jesus is that one man mediator, and comforter. ...

We certainly all have our work cut out to be "steadfast and immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that our toil is not in vain" (1 Cor. 15:58). Jesus and Paul did not have to face quite the chaos of clamoring religious arguments and divisions we have today. Finding and holding truth may seem rather like finding a needle in a haystack. But I am convinced we have truths to which we must hold fast for our own salvation and in order to pass them on, polished and refined, to our successors. It still remains an overwhelmingly interesting fact that Jesus promised to send scribes, trained Bible personnel (Matt. 23:34), and he interpreted as among the righteous those "instructors" who make many righteous (Matt. 13:43; Dan. 12:2). A very unpopular text is Isaiah 53:11 where the Messiah, servant "makes many righteous by his knowledge." The Son came "to give us  an understanding that we might come to know God" (1 John 5:20).

All this is based on Abraham's and Jesus' example, so loved by Paul, who twice quotes the amazingly simple truth that Abraham believed God and this was reckoned to him as making him right (not wrong), straight and no longer crooked (Gen. 15:6 cited by Paul in Gal. 3:6 and Rom. 4:3). To Abraham was promised "progeny, prosperity and property." We become heirs of these promises through the "obedience of faith" (Rom. 1:5; 16:26) and in Jesus.

Jesus Clearly Is Not Almighty God, If Jesus is Almighty God ...

I came across some articles on the Net which consisted of:

1) a coherent and indisputable case for the difference between the ONE Almighty GOD, the Father; and His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ;

2) followed by some very pertinent questions. 

What follows therefore, is a combination of extracts from these articles:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Jesus Clearly Is Not Almighty God

JESUS never claimed to be God. Everything he said about himself indicates that he did not consider himself equal to God in any way--not in power, not in knowledge, not in age.

In every period of his existence, whether on earth or in heaven, his speech and conduct reflect subordination to God.

God is always the superior, Jesus the lesser one who was created by God.

 

Jesus Distinguished From God

 

TIME and again, Jesus showed that he was a creature separate from God and that he, Jesus, had a God above him, a God whom he worshiped, a God whom he called "Father." In prayer to God, that is, the Father, Jesus said, "You, the only true God." (John 17:3) At John 20:17 he said to Mary Magdalene: "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." ...
At 2 Corinthians 1:3 the apostle Paul confirms this relationship: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Since Jesus had a God, his Father, he could not at the same time be that God.

The apostle Paul had no reservations about speaking of Jesus and God as distinctly separate: "For us there is one God, the Father, . . . and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ." (1 Corinthians 8:6, JB) The apostle shows the distinction when he mentions "the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels." (1 Timothy 5:21, ...) Just as Paul speaks of Jesus and the angels as being distinct from one another in heaven, so too are Jesus and God.

Jesus' words at John 8:17, 18 are also significant. He states: "In your own Law it is written, 'The witness of two men is true.' I am one that bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me." Here Jesus shows that he and the Father, that is, Almighty God, must be two distinct entities, for how else could there truly be two witnesses?

Jesus further showed that he was a separate being from God by saying: "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." (Mark 10:18, JB) So Jesus was saying that no one is as good as God is, not even Jesus himself. God is good in a way that separates him from Jesus.

 

God's Submissive Servant

 

TIME and again, Jesus made statements such as: "The Son cannot do anything at his own pleasure, he can only do what he sees his Father doing." (John 5:19, ...) "I have come down from heaven to do, not my will, but the will of him that sent me." (John 6:38) "What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me." (John 7:16) Is not the sender superior to the one sent?

This relationship is evident in Jesus' illustration of the vineyard. He likened God, his Father, to the owner of the vineyard, who traveled abroad and left it in the charge of cultivators, who represented the Jewish clergy. When the owner later sent a slave to get some of the fruit of the vineyard, the cultivators beat the slave and sent him away empty-handed. Then the owner sent a second slave, and later a third, both of whom got the same treatment. Finally, the owner said: "I will send my son [Jesus] the beloved. Likely they will respect this one." But the corrupt cultivators said: "'This is the heir; let us kill him, that the inheritance may become ours.' With that they threw him outside the vineyard and killed him." (Luke 20:9-16) Thus Jesus illustrated his own position as one being sent by God to do God's will, just as a father sends a submissive son.

The followers of Jesus always viewed him as a submissive servant of God, not as God's equal. They prayed to God about "thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, . . . and signs and wonders are performed through the name of thy holy servant Jesus."
--Acts 4:27, 30, ...

 

 God Superior at All Times

 

AT THE very outset of Jesus' ministry, when he came up out of the baptismal water, God's voice from heaven said: "This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved." (Matthew 3:16, 17) Was God saying that he was his own son, that he approved himself, that he sent himself? No, God the Creator was saying that He, as the superior, was approving a lesser one, His Son Jesus, for the work ahead.

Jesus indicated his Father's superiority when he said: "[YAHWEH's] spirit is upon me, because he anointed me to declare good news to the poor." (Luke 4:18) Anointing is the giving of authority or a commission by a superior to someone who does not already have authority. Here God is plainly the superior, for He anointed Jesus, giving him authority that he did not previously have.

Jesus made his Father's superiority clear when the mother of two disciples asked that her sons sit one at the right and one at the left of Jesus when he came into his Kingdom. Jesus answered: "As for seats at my right hand and my left, these are not mine to grant; they belong to those to whom they have been allotted by my Father," that is, God.
(Matthew 20:23, JB) Had Jesus been Almighty God, those positions would have been his to give. But Jesus could not give them, for they were God's to give, and Jesus was not God.

Jesus' own prayers are a powerful example of his inferior position. When Jesus was about to die, he showed who his superior was by praying: "Father, if you wish, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, let, not my will, but yours take place." (Luke 22:42) To whom was he praying? To a part of himself? No, he was praying to someone entirely separate, his Father, God, whose will was superior and could be different from his own, the only One able to "remove this cup."

Then, as he neared death, Jesus cried out: "My God, my God, why have you deserted me?" (Mark 15:34, JB) To whom was Jesus crying out? To himself or to part of himself? Surely, that cry, "My God," was not from someone who considered himself to be God. And if Jesus were God, then by whom was he deserted? Himself? That would not make sense. Jesus also said: "Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit." (Luke 23:46) If Jesus were God, for what reason should he entrust his spirit to the Father?

After Jesus died, he was in the tomb for ... three days. If he were God, then Habakkuk 1:12 is wrong when it says: "O my God, my Holy One, you do not die." But the Bible says that Jesus did die and was unconscious in the tomb. And who resurrected Jesus from the dead? If he was truly dead, he could not have resurrected himself. ... So it was "God [who] resurrected [Jesus] by loosing the pangs of death." (Acts 2:24) The superior, God Almighty, raised the lesser, his servant Jesus, from the dead.

Does Jesus' ability to perform miracles, such as resurrecting people, indicate that he was God? Well, the apostles and the prophets Elijah and Elisha had that power too, but that did not make them more than men. God gave the power to perform miracles to the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles to show that He was backing them. But it did not make any of them part of a plural Godhead.

 

Jesus Had Limited Knowledge

 

WHEN Jesus gave his prophecy about the end of this [age], he stated: "But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." (Mark 13:32, ...) Had Jesus been the equal Son, part of a Godhead, he would have known what the Father knows. But Jesus did not know, for he was not equal to God.

Similarly, we read at Hebrews 5:8 that Jesus "learned obedience from the things he suffered." Can we imagine that God had to learn anything? No, but Jesus did, for he did not know everything that God knew. And he had to learn something that God never needs to learn--obedience. God never has to obey anyone.

The difference between what God knows and what Christ knows also existed when Jesus was resurrected to heaven to be with God. Note the first words of the last book of the Bible: "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him." (Revelation 1:1, ...) If Jesus himself were part of a Godhead, would he have to be given a revelation by another part of the Godhead--God? Surely he would have known all about it, for God knew. But Jesus did not know, for he was not God.

 

 Jesus Continues Subordinate

 

... Jesus was subordinate to God. After his resurrection, he continues to be in a subordinate, secondary position.

Speaking of the resurrection of Jesus, Peter and those with him told the Jewish Sanhedrin: "God exalted this one [Jesus] . . . to his right hand." (Acts 5:31) Paul said: "God exalted him to a superior position." (Philippians 2:9) If Jesus had been God, how could Jesus have been exalted, that is, raised to a higher position than he had previously enjoyed? He would already have been an exalted part of the Trinity. If, before his exaltation, Jesus had been equal to God, exalting him any further would have made him superior to God.

Paul also said that Christ entered "heaven itself, so that he could appear in the actual presence of God on our behalf." (Hebrews 9:24, JB) If you appear in someone else's presence, how can you be that person? You cannot. You must be different and separate.

Similarly, just before being stoned to death, the martyr Stephen "gazed into heaven and caught sight of God's glory and of Jesus standing at God's right hand." (Acts 7:55) Clearly, he saw two separate individuals--but no holy spirit, no Trinity Godhead.

In the account at Revelation 4:8 to 5:7, God is shown seated on his heavenly throne, but Jesus is not. He has to approach God to take a scroll from God's right hand. This shows that in heaven Jesus is not God but is separate from him.

 

In agreement with the foregoing, the Bulletin of the John Rylands Library in Manchester, England, states: "In his post-resurrection heavenly life, Jesus is portrayed as retaining a personal individuality every bit as distinct and separate from the person of God as was his in his life on earth as the terrestrial Jesus. Alongside God and compared with God, he appears, indeed, as yet another heavenly being in God's heavenly court, just as the angels were--though as God's Son, he stands in a different category, and ranks far above them."
--Compare Philippians 2:11.

The Bulletin also says: "What, however, is said of his life and functions as the celestial Christ neither means nor implies that in divine status he stands on a par with God himself and is fully God. On the contrary, in the New Testament picture of his heavenly person and ministry we behold a figure both separate from and subordinate to God."

In the everlasting future ..., Jesus will continue to be a separate, subordinate servant of God. The Bible expresses it this way: "After that will come the end, when he [Jesus ...] will hand over the kingdom to God the Father . . . Then the Son himself will be subjected to the One who has subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all."
--1 Corinthians 15:24, 28, NJB

  

 Jesus Never Claimed to Be God

 

THE Bible's position is clear. Not only is Almighty God, [YAHWEH], a personality separate from Jesus but He is at all times his superior. Jesus is always presented as separate and lesser, a humble servant of God. That is why the Bible plainly says that "the head of the Christ is God" in the same way that "the head of every man is the Christ." (1 Corinthians 11:3)
And this is why Jesus himself said: "The Father is greater than I." John 14:28, ...

The fact is that Jesus is not God and never claimed to be. This is being recognized by an increasing number of scholars. As the Rylands Bulletin states: "The fact has to be faced that New Testament research over, say, the last thirty or forty years has been leading an increasing number of reputable New Testament scholars to the conclusion that Jesus . . . certainly never believed himself to be God."

The Bulletin also says of first-century Christians: "When, therefore, they assigned [Jesus] such honorific titles as Christ, Son of man, Son of God and Lord, these were ways of saying not that he was God, but that he did God's work."

Thus, even some religious scholars admit that the idea of Jesus being God opposes the entire testimony of the Bible. There, God is always the superior, and Jesus is the subordinate servant.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

If Jesus is Almighty God ...

 

• Then why is "God, head of Christ just as Christ, is head of man"?(1 Cor. 11:3)
• Then why does Scripture consistently phrase Jesus as a separate person from God?
  (John 20:17; John 14:1; Mark 10:18; John 17:1-3; etc.
  Also in heaven, 1 Cor. 11:3; Luke 22:69; etc.)
• Then how can Jesus have a God? Could Almighty God have a God?
  (Mic. 5:4; Ps. 45:6, 7; 89:26; John 20:17; Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; Eph 1:3; Col 1:3; Mark 15:34; John 17:1-3;
  Also in heaven, Rev. 1:6; 3:2, 12)
• Then why does Rev. 3:14 say that Jesus is "the beginning of the creation of God"?
• Then why is he subject to GOD, like we're subject to him?(1 Cor. 15:27, 28; [Eph. 1:22])
• Then why does Jesus not know what God knows?(Matt. 24:36, [Mark 13:32]; Rev.1:1; Luke 8:45)
• Then why is Jesus still subject to God when he is as high as he will ever be?(1 Cor. 15:27, 28)
• Then why is he not powerful enough to subject things to himself?(1 Cor. 15:27, Eph. 1:17, 22)
• Then why would he have to be given any power and authority?(Mt. 28:18; 11:27; [John 5:27]; 17:2; 3:35; 2 Pet. 1:17)
• Then why did he have to learn anything?(Heb. 5:8; John 8:28)
• Then why is speaking against him not as bad as speaking against the Holy Spirit?(Mt. 12:31,32; Luke 12:10)
• Then why did Jesus call the "Father...the only true God"?(John 17:3)
• Then why did he need to be saved?(Heb. 5:7; John 12:27)
• Then why did he have to be exalted to Leader and Savior?(Acts 5:31)
• Then how could he be exalted and given a higher name than he had?(Phil. 2:9-11; Heb. 1:2-4)
• Then why did he have to be given life in himself?(John 5:25,26)
• Then how could Jesus be tempted by Satan when God cannot be tempted with evil?(James 1:13)
• Then why did he worship the Father?(John 4:22-23)
• Then why can he not do anything on his own?(John 5:19; [8.28])
• Then why would he pray to anybody?(Luke 22:44; John 17:1,2; Heb. 5:7)
• Then how can he be God's servant?(Acts [3:13,26], 4:26,27,30)
• Then how could he receive strength from an angel?(Luke 22:43)
• Then how could he be a mediator between God and man?(1 Tim. 2:5)
• Then why did Jesus say GOD was "good" in a way that Jesus was not?(Mark 10:18)
• Then how could he get commanded to do anything?(John 12:49; Deut. 18:18)
• Then why did Stephen see two separate entities, [the glory of] GOD and Jesus, and not just one God or three persons?(Acts 7:55)
• Then how could he be seen at GOD's right hand?(Luke 22:69; Acts 7:55; Rom. 8:34)
• Then how could Jesus be exalted (not to become God Himself, but) to the position of the "right hand OF God"?(Acts 2:33)
• Then why would he have to receive a revelation from God?(Rev.1:1)
• Then how could he have a Father?(John 20:17)
• Then why did he not come in his own name?(John 5:41-44)
• Then how could he appear before GOD?(Heb. 9:24)
• Then how could he die? Can God die? Can part of God die?
  (Rom. 5:10; Acts 5:30; 1 Cor. 15:3; Hab.1:12; cf. 1 Tim. 6:16; Num. 23:19; Ps. 90:2; Dan. 6:25-26)
• Then why is it that God resurrected Jesus?(Acts 2:32)
• Then why can we see him if "no man has seen God at any time"?(John 1:18)
• Then why is there not one clear scripture where Jesus is called "God the Son," (equal to those declaring "God, the Father)?

The Trinity Delusion - 3 Articles

Three further articles from the "Trinity Delusion" website.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Article 1)

Shema: The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob "The LORD our God, the LORD is One." (Deuteronomy 6:4). The above verse is the simplest form of the Shema. The Hebrew text literally says, "YHVH our God YHVH is one." While we don't know for certain, and the matter is often disputed, the letters "YHVH" are usually understood by most Christian scholars to have been pronounced as "Yahweh" or "Yahveh." The word "Jehovah" is simply an anglicization of Yahweh just as Peter is an anglicization of the Greek name Petros and Jesus is an anglicization of the Greek name Iesous and Aramaic Yashua. The Shema is a basic confession of Jews and Christians. It declares that God is one. We must ask ourselves a very important question. If God is "One" then in what way is God "one"? Just how is God "one"? What did God intend for us to understand by these words? And when other passages such as "there is no other but He" are considered, how do such words impact Deuteronomy 6:4? More importantly, what did God intend the ancient Jews to understand by these words? Are we to believe the above confession is intended to convey that God is one "substance," or that God is one trio, as Trinitarians want us to believe? Or did God intend to convey that He is one person? Did God want the Israelites to understand the Gentiles had many gods but the Israelite God in contrast was one substance? Is such a proprosal even reasonable? The Shema identifies the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But just who was the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob? Was Abraham's one and only God just one person? Or was Abraham's one and only God three persons in number? Was Isaac and Jacob's one and only God just one person? Or was Isaac and Jacob's one and only God three persons in number? Just who was Israel's God? Who was Jesus' God? Was Jesus' one and only God a three person being? Or was Jesus' Father alone his one and only God? And if God is a three person being, why does the Bible indicate the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had a servant-son named Jesus? The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His servant-son Jesus (Acts 3:13). Jesus was an Israelite. He was the King of the Jews. Jesus stressed the vital importance of the Shema: One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, "What commandment is the foremost of all?" Jesus answered, "The foremost is, 'Hear O Israel. The Lord our God the Lord is One' and 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this, `You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these." So the scribe said to Him, "Well said Teacher. You have spoken the truth, for there is one God, and there is no other but He. And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God."" (Mark 12:28-34). The Jewish scribe refers to this one God as "He." Now we must ask ourselves just who this Jewish scribe had in mind when he used the word "He." The Lord our God the Lord is one "He" and there is no other God but this one "He." Is it reasonable or or is it disingenuous to suggest this Jewish scribe had a three person being in mind and worshiped a Triune God? Or did he have one person in mind? Well we know from Scripture, and Jesus' own words, that the Jews considered their God to be one person - the Father (John 8:41,54). Are we really to believe this learned Jew was referring to a three person God? Let us also not forget that the statement "the Lord our God the Lord is one" is understood in terms of the words "there is no other but He" (see Deut 4:35). And we must also take very careful note of something Jesus says here. Jesus told this man he had answered wisely. Are we to believe Jesus was being sarcastically coy? We know this scribe was referring to someone he perceived to be one person, the Father. How then did Jesus say the Jewish scribe answered wisely if indeed God was actually a three person being? And when Jesus prayed the above words, as Jews do, just who did he himself have in mind? Did he really have a three person God in mind as Trinitarians would have us believe? Or did he simply have his Father in mind? In Jesus' own mind, just who was that one and only God whom they were talking about? One person, or three? Who was Jesus' one and only God? "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God" (John 20:17). Jesus was the son of God. Who is "God" in the term "son of God"? Jesus? A three person being? Or is Jesus the son of the one God who happens to be his Father? Plainly, we are to understand that God is one and Jesus is another and God is Jesus' Father and Jesus is God's son. Does it really make sense to then claim the Son of God is God? Would it make any sense to claim the son of Adam is Adam or the son of David is David or the son of Noah is Noah? Jesus said he was ascending to his God. This was the God that Jesus and the Jewish scribe were discussing and "there is no other but He." And Jesus clearly identifies his one God as his Father, not a Triune God. His Father was his one and only God. Jesus then goes further and reminds us that his God is our God. There is no difference between Jesus' God and our God. And of course there shouldn't be any difference or we would have two Gods/gods on our hands. If indeed there is only one God then Jesus can't have a different God than his followers. Did Jesus worship and serve a three person God? Or did Jesus worship and serve his father as his one and only God? To reasonable people who are honest with themselves, the answer is obvious. Jesus' God was his Father alone. And Jesus tells us that his one and only God is also our God - the Father. Ask yourself a very important question and try to be reasonable and honest with yourself. Ask yourself, "Who was Jesus' God?" Now ask yourself if this was the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob who sent his servant-son Jesus? Now ask yourself if a Triune God is the same God Jesus served. And if not, ask yourself if this Triune God is another God? "My God and Your God" - Jesus

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Article 2)

Jesus and a Jewish Scribe Jesus prayed to his Father and identifies his Father as the only true God: Father.... this is eternal life, that they may know You, the Only True God and Jesus Christ whom You sent. The Only True God, Jesus' Father, sent Jesus. In Mark chapter 12, there is an interesting exchange between the Jew Jesus and a Jewish scribe: And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the first of all?" Jesus answered, "The first is, "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' The second is this, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." And the scribe said to him, "You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that He is one, and there is no other but He; and to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices." And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And after that no one dared to ask him any question. Now let us stop for a moment and ask ourselves a very important question. Just who was this Jewish scribe talking about when he said, "HE is one" and "there is no other but HE"? Is it reasonable to suggest this scribe had a three person being in mind? Or is it more reasonable to suggest he had one person in mind? [The Pharisees]: "We have one Father: God." (John 8:41). The Jews never perceived God to be anything but one person. It would be ridiculous to claim this Jewish scribe had anyone but one person in mind. Jesus confirms this fact: Jesus answered, "If I glorify myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, "He is our God" (John 8:54). Jesus confirms that his Father was the God of the Jews. Jesus too was a Jew. Now notice how Jesus responds to the Jewish scribe. And the scribe said to him, "You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that He is one, and there is no other but He; and to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices." And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." Jesus wasn't a Trinitarian either. Both the Jewish scribe and Jesus the Jew had the same idea in mind when they said that God is one - Jesus' Father, one person. Now it gets even more interesting. Notice how the Jesus said, "The Lord our God the Lord is one" and the Jewish scribe responsed to that statement by saying, "you have truly said that He is one, and there is no other but He." Clearly, the Jewish scribe is emphasizing the exclusivity of the God which they have in mind. He says that Jesus had just said "there is no other but He" indicating this is what the Shema is supposed to indicate. And Jesus confirms this fact by saying he had answered wisely. We find the same idea at Deuteronomy 4:35. We must ask, "there is no other but WHO exactly"? Who did Jesus and this Jewish Scribe have in mind exactly? The honest and reasonable person knows the answer. Jesus' God was his Father and his Father alone. And it is for this reason that we find Jesus teaching his disciples: "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God" (John 20:17). The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was one person, Jesus' Father (Acts 3:13). Jesus' God was his Father. Our God is Jesus' Father. Jesus taught us the truth explicitly when he said, "my God and your God." Let us not serve a different God than Jesus. Do you thus requite the Lord, you foolish and senseless people? Is not he your Father, who created you, who made you and established you?....See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no God besides ME (Deuteronomy 32:6,39). ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Article 3) Jesus Christ's One and Only God "The LORD our God, the LORD is One." (Deuteronomy 6:4). Jesus was a Jew. He was an obedient Jew. When Jesus confessed to God, "the LORD our God, the LORD is one" just who did he have in mind? A three person God? Or his Father alone? Read the following Scripture verses and see if you can determine if Jesus' one and only God was a one person being or three person being. He who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God. Never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name." (Rev 3:12). "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46). But I know that you have not the love of God within you. I have come in the name of my Father, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, him you will receive. How can you believe, who receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? (John 5:43-44). The Head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3). Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort. (2 Corinthians 1:3). The God and Father of our Lord Jesus. (2 Corinthians 11:31). Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Ephesians 1:3). The God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory (Ephesians 1:17). We give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (Colossians 1:3). Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:3). [Jesus] has made us kings and priests to his God and Father. (Revelation 1:6). Father.... this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent (John 17:3). Clearly, the one and only God of Jesus Christ was not a three person being but was his Father alone. Jesus' God was His Father and Jesus' Father was His God. We have not the slightest reason to believe any differently. And since Jesus is not a polytheist he taught us that his God is to be our God. I am ascending to my Father and your Father and my God and your God (John 20:17). ~~~~~~~~~~~~ The above extract of articles taken from: The Trinity Delusion

The Trinity Delusion - 4 Articles

What follows are four excellent articles from the "Trinity Delusion" website. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Article 1) Does worship of Jesus demonstrate he is God? "Let all the angels of God worship him." Trinitarian Claim A very common claim by Trinitarians is to claim "Jesus is God" because we find both men and angels worshiping Jesus in the Bible. Examination of the Claims Proskyneo and the English word "Worship." In Greek, there are two words which have been translated as "worship." Neither one of these Greek words do themselves contain the whole constellation of ideas which are usually associated with the English word "worship." In many minds, the English word "worship" is something one only does to the one God. This article deals with the Greek word proskyneo and demonstrates why Trinitarian claims concerning this particular Greek word are false. This claim is extremely disingenuous because the English word "worship" does by itself imply a special kind of devotion to a divine being and in Christianity, God. However, what Trinitarian apologists often do not disclose is that the English word "worship" is used to translate two different Greek words, proskuneo, and latreuo. The first Greek word means simply to bow down before a higher authority. The second word refers to do divine service such as temple service. Most of the Trinitarian claims concern the word proskyneo and we shall soon see here that this word was used by the ancient Greek speaking people to refer to "worship" of ANY higher authority. 1. How the Greek word proskyneo is used in the Bible. There are many, many examples in the Scriptures that show us how this Greek word is used. The corresponding Hebrew word is shachah. If we translated the word proskyneo as "worship" then Lot worshiped two angels (Genesis 19:1-2), Abraham worshiped the Hittites (Genesis 23:7,12), Isaac blesses Jacob to have all nations on earth worship him (Genesis 27:29), Jacob worshiped Esau (Genesis 33:1-4), Joseph's brothers worship him (Genesis 37:9-10; 42:3-6; 43:26-28), Abigail worshiped David's servants (1 Samuel 25:40-41), ... the sons of the prophets worshiped Elisha (2 Kings 2:15), David worshiped the Temple (Psalm 5:7) and all the people of Israel worshiped King David (1 Chronicles 29:20). And there are many more examples. 2. The Magi Trinitarians will even sometimes use the example of the Magi to insist that proskyneo worship of Jesus necessarily demonstrates he was God. But this particular claim is absurd. ... We are told they came to bow down before a human King, not to God. They came to proskyneo worship a human infant not God. The reason they came to proskyneo worship this human being was because he was the King of the Jews. Again we see that the reason they would do proskyneo worship was because they were respecting a higher authority. 3. Matthew 4:10: You shall worship the Lord your God and serve Him only However, Trinitarians can't seem to get these facts through their heads or perhaps more rightly, they don't want to get the facts straight in their minds. And so they ignore the facts and appeal to some of their other mistaken interpretations of the Scriptures. One example of this kind of blunder is Matthew 4:10 where Jesus is being tempted by the devil to accept authority over the whole world if he will only bow down and worship him. Jesus then responds by quoting the Law, "You will worship the Lord your God and serve Him only." As usual, Trinitarians are so blinded by their own desires they do not see the problems with their own claims. First, if the Trinitarian interpretation of this verse had any merit, then Lot, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and David were all sinning when they proskyneo worshiped other identities and indeed David even worshiped the temple. Even further, according to the Trinitarian interpretation, the whole assembly of Israel then sinned when they proskyneo worshiped both YAHWEH and the King. [1 Chronicles 29.20] Secondly, Trinitarians completely fail to see the time frame when Jesus made this statement. Jesus was made lower than the angels. And in Hebrews 1:6, all the angels were to bow down before Jesus only after God had raised him from the dead, after God gave him all authority in heaven and upon the earth, after God made him Lord, and after God sat him down at his right hand making him superior to the angels just as we read at Hebrews 1:4-5. Furthermore, the word "only" in this verse [Matt 4.10] does not qualify the word proskyneo which is translated as "worship." It only qualifies the word latreuo which is translated as "serve." Nowhere is Jesus given latreuo worship. ... In his temptation, Jesus was being tempted to DISOBEY God and rather do the devil's will. Jesus' response was that he would rather submit to his God and Father's authority and serve Him alone. 4. The Angels Worship Jesus Another blind claim is to say that since the angels worshiped Jesus (Hebrews 1:6) then he must be God Himself. However, this completely ignores the context which tells us precisely WHY they are to bow down in subjection to Jesus. Being a man, the writers tells us that Jesus was made lower than the angels (2:7) but now in his resurrection he is crowned with glory and honor (2:7) and in this way has become superior to the angels have inherited a better name than the angels (1:4). In his resurrection God made him "Lord" (Acts 2:36) giving him all authority in heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18) when he sat Jesus down at his right hand. In this way, he became superior in position to the angels, his God anointing him to be above the angels (Heb 1:9). You have put all things in subjection under his feet. (Heb 2:8). Jesus is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, and having angels and authorities and powers subjected to Him. (1 Peter 3:22) It is quite clear why angels are to proskyneo worship Jesus. He now sits in a position higher than the angels ... and in this way he has become better than the angels. Indeed, carefully regard the following: Then King David said to the entire assembly... Then David said to all the assembly, "Now bless YAHWEH your God." And all the assembly blessed YAHWEH, the God of their fathers, and bowed low and WORSHIPED YAHWEH and the King.... Then Solomon sat on the Throne of YAHWEH as King instead of David his father; and he prospered, and all Israel obeyed him. All the officials, the mighty men, and also all the sons of King David pledged allegiance to King Solomon. (1 Chronicles 29). Notice how King [Solomon] had sat on "the throne of YAHWEH" and all the assembly of Israel proskyneo worshiped both YAHWEH and King David. And indeed, the entire first chapter of the book of Hebrews is about the fact that Jesus has sat down at the right hand of God; ... And Jesus has not only been given authority over Israel like his father David but he was given authority over all things when God raised him from the dead. The one God has put his son in charge of everything. For this reason also, we are told that God has appointed a man through whom He, God, will judge all men (Acts 17:30-31). 5. Peter and Cornelius Another way Trinitarians attempt to misrepresent the facts is by quoting the following passage: "When Peter entered, Cornelius met him, and fell at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter raised him up, saying, "Stand up; I too am just a man." (Acts 10:25-26). The word here too is proskyneo. Here, Trinitarians often claim, is evidence that Peter knew that nobody was to bow down before anyone but God. However, this is reading an extraneous concept into the text. Peter is not a King nor was there any reason for Cornelius to bow down to him. Cornelius was bowing down to Peter because God had given him a vision to send men to bring Peter to his household. Hence, Cornelius was in a state where he perceived that God himself considered Peter to be a very important man. But Peter was taught by Jesus to serve and not lord over anyone. Hence, Peter was taught by Jesus to serve people and not have them bow down to him. In the Scriptures, it is plain that there was nothing wrong with bowing down in subjection to higher authorities (proskyneo) other than God. However, there was a big problem with bowing down before the host of heaven or other gods. God forbids anyone to do this type of thing. But he forbids no one from bowing down before higher authorities. In fact, we read at Romans 13:1ff that the authorities which exist were estalbished by God. To refuse to bow down before these authorities is to disobey God. In his temptation, Jesus was being tempted to DISOBEY God and rather do the devil's will. Jesus' response was that he would rather submit to his God and Father's authority and serve Him alone. ... Conclusion When we have all the facts before us the truth is plain to see. People all over the Bible are bowing down before higher authorities who are not God. The Israelites were not allowed to bow down before other gods since doing so would be a gesture that they were submitting to the authority of these gods and not to Yahweh their God, a jealous God. And when we come to the New Testament, we find people appropriately bowing down before the higher authority Jesus because he is the King of Israel and because he is the Son of God Most High. He was royalty and humans bow down before royalty, their King, and rightly so. God has appointed all authorities in heaven and on earth. And when the man Jesus is resurrected and ascends to the [right hand of] God, all creation is subject to him. We are told this resurrected man is above all other authority and rule with all the angels subject to him. Indeed, we are told that God made him "Lord" in his resurrection (Acts 2:30-36) and have given him all this authority (Matthew 28:18) having sat down at the right hand of God until he puts all his enemies under his feet. The Trinitarian claim is a farce. Notes: Proskyneo: The word proskyneo simply means "to bow down before," or to prostrate one's self before another in the sense that one is acknowledge his low estate as compared to the high estate of the person he is bowing down before. It is a gesture of submission to a higher authority. This Greek word does not come packed with the the constellation of religious ideas that we have with the English word "worship." Latreuo. This Greek word is still not exactly the same as the English word "worship" but it is much closer and usually denotes religious worship. It carries the idea of serving a higher authority in a religious or spiritual sense. While this word also does not itself connotate service to a divine being, the concept of serving a divine being is indeed usually implied. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Article 2) Mark 2:7 Who can forgive sins but God alone? The Trinitarian Claim Trinitarians claim that only God can forgive sins. In this passage, the Pharisees declare that only God can forgive sins. But here Jesus forgives sins and therefore it is claimed he must be God. The Trinitarian Response Trinitarians here resort to a nullification of Jesus' words. Their response usually goes something like, "Are you saying Jesus is not good?" suggestively implying that the issue is about moral goodness. Your response should be, "No, I am saying Jesus himself said only his God is good. Would you like to know why he said this?" Examination of the Claim Trinitarians Missing the Very Point of this Narrative Who can forgive sins? Answer: The one whom God gave authority to forgive sins. The man Jesus of Nazareth that's who! And not only Jesus of Nazareth but since his resurrection there are others as well. At times, Trinitarian promotions of their favorite doctrine clearly reveal their total disregard for the real message in deference to their apologetic mission. Trinitarians here make the same mistake as the Pharisees. It is the Pharisees who insisted only God can forgive sins. The very point of this account is to illustrate how Jesus demonstrated the Pharisees were dead wrong. Let's note what Jesus says in the same account written by the hand of Matthew: "But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins, he then said to the paralytic, "Rise, take up your bed and go home" (Matthew 9:6). Notice what Jesus does here. The Pharisees charge that only God can forgive sins. But Jesus tells them that the Son of man has authority to forgive sins on earth and he is healing the paralytic to prove to these Pharisees with this sign that he has this authority. He asks, "Which is easier?" Is it easier to do a miracle or forgive a man's sins? Obviously, it is the latter. So Jesus does the more difficult to prove that he has the authority to do the easier thing. Man was given this authority and Jesus is demonstrating to the Pharisees that their notion that God alone can forgive sins is in error. Trinitarians should take note. Now let us carefully note what Matthew has to say in his parallel account of Mark's account: "When the crowds saw it, they were awestruck, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men (Matthew 9:8). Yes, the crowds were quite amazed by the fact that God had given such authority to men to forgive sins. Jesus had proven the Pharisees to be completely wrong. Notice how we are told that God gave this authority to men, clearly showing us that Jesus as a man was given this authority by his God. So, what more do we need to say here? The Trinitarian abuse of Mark 2:7 to promote their doctrine is an absolutely apalling example of their errors. The passage demonstrates that the Pharisaical notion that only God could forgive sins was wrong and Matthew writes that the crowds were amazed that God had given such authority to forgive sins to men. We should also take note here that God is distinguished from the man Jesus in this passage. Perhaps, one could make up a little story here that the crowds didn't realize Jesus was God yet. Well, that wouldn't make any difference at all. Matthew wrote this passage under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and he said that God had indeed given such authority to men, and the man who had been given this authority, happened to be Jesus the Nazarene. Let's look at Mark's parallel passage and we will insert the phrase Matthew left out of the same account in his Gospel. And behold, they brought to him a paralytic, lying on his bed, and when Jesus saw their faith he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, my son. Your sins are forgiven." And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, "This man is blaspheming. [Who can forgive sins but God alone?]" But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, "Why do you think evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, "Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, "Rise and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins," he then said to the paralytic, "Rise, take up your bed and go home." And he rose and went home. When the crowds saw it, they were in awe, and they glorified God who had given such authority to MEN." (Matthew 9:2-8; Mk 2:7). If anything this passage militates heavily against Trinitarianism because it illustrates that God gave authority to men in the giving of this authority to the man Jesus. It not only distinguishes God from the man Jesus but it also shows us that if Jesus was God, why would he need to be given this authority from God in the first place? After all, Trinitarians claim Jesus assumed humanity and did not leave behind his divinity. But here we see God had given him that authority. Now that we have demonstrated these facts, the Trinitarian has no alternative but to claim God gave this to Jesus "in his humanity." But what will do that for him? One minute he claims that Jesus can do certain things "because he is God" and the next minute is insisting God had to give him this authority "became he was a man." So which is it? God did not give authority to a human nature; God gave authority to a person because that person was himself a man. The Trinitarian apologetic is once again is shown to be extremely disingenuous. The passages themselves tell us that the reason Jesus was forgiving this man's sins was that he as a man who was given authority to do so by God, not because he was "God," and so the Trinitarian finds himself not serving the teaching of Jesus but falling down flat on the side of the Pharisees. Jesus gives this same authority to his apostles. After he rose from the dead, he breathed the Holy Spirit upon them and told them that if they forgave the sins of any they were forgiven and if they retained the sins of any they were retained. Before Jesus said this he said, "As the Father sent me, I also send you" and breathed the Spirit into them. [John 20.21-23] When Jesus was baptized at the Jordan, he was given authority in the same way by the Spirit to forgive sins. And later, he sent his Apostles to do the very same thing. God has granted this authority to men through His Holy Spirit that lives in these men who do forgive sins in his name. And the Father sent Jesus, now he also sent his Apostles. This is why they baptized in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins. They had the authority given to them to do these things in the name of Jesus by the Spirit he gave them just as Jesus did these things in the name of his God and Father. As he himself said on this occasion, "Just as the Father sent me, I now send you." The teaching in this gospel is that God had given authority to forgive sins to men. To prove he had this authority, he asked which was greater, to forgive sins, or to heal a crippled man. And so he healed a crippled man to prove he was given the authority to forgive sins. We are plainly told by Peter that God had anointed him with such authority (Acts 2:22; 10:38; cf. Luke 4:18). Who can forgive sins but God alone? Those who have been given that authority in the Holy Spirit. And the man Jesus was given that authority by God at the Jordan. Indeed it is by God dwelling in Jesus in the Spirit that sins were forgiven. Conclusion The very point of this narrative is to demonstrate that God had given authority to a man, the man Jesus, to forgive sins. And Jesus demonstrates to the Pharisees that he had been given this authority by doing the greater miracle, healing the paralytic. "They glorified God, who had given such authority to men." ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Article 3) Does the title "Lord" indicate that Jesus is God? Trinitarian Claim Trinitarians sometimes make the claim that the word "Lord" is a term which does by itself signify that "Jesus is God." Examination of the Claim 1. Many Lords in Scripture There are numerous characters in the Bible who are called "Lord." The word "Lord" is simply a term used to refer to someone with a higher authority. The following examples show how the word is used in Scriptures to refer to an array of different individuals: Abraham is Sarah's Lord So Sarah laughed to herself, saying, "After I have grown old, and my Lord is old, shall I have pleasure?" (Genesis 18:12; cf. 1 Peter 3:6). Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him "Lord" (1 Peter 3:6). Two Angels are Lot's Lords The two angels came to Sodom in the evening and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he arose to meet them, and bowed himself with his face to the earth, and said, "My Lords, turn aside, I pray you, to your servant's house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise up early and go on your way." [Gen 19:1-2] The Philippian Jailer calls Paul and Silas "Lords." "Lords, what must I do to be saved? (Acts 16:30). There are numerous characters in Scripture who are called "Lord." And as we can see, it has nothing to do with deity. You may also note how Trinitarians traditionally refrain from translating the word as "Lord" in verses like Acts 16:30 above. However, this is misleading since it is the exact same Greek word [Kurios] that is used to refer to the Lord Jesus. The word [Kurios] was quite simply used to refer to anyone who had authority over someone else. 2. God made Jesus Lord The word "Lord" is a term which refer to authority. When Jesus rose from the dead he said, "All authority in heaven and upon the earth has been given to me" (Matthew 28:18). At Acts 2:36 we read that God made Jesus Lord when He raised him from the dead. Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: 'The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, until I make your enemies Your footstool." ' Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." The falsity of the Trinitarian claim is manifested when we realize that if the word "Lord" meant "God" then Trinitarians would have to say that God made Jesus "God" when he raised him from the dead. God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knew will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:9-11). 4. The word "Lord" in the Hebrew Scriptures Understanding the use of the English word "Lord" in the Old Testament is a bit more complicated than it is in the New Testament. The reason for this is that most English Old Testament Bibles use the word "LORD" to translate the tetragrammaton "YHWH," that is, "Yahweh." Jews, not wishing to pronounce the divine name used the term "Adonai" in place of "YHWH." Adonai is the word we translate as "Lord" in English Bibles. So when you see the word "LORD" with all capital letters in English Bibles, it translates ... "YHWH." ... Adonai is a special Hebrew word used only to refer to Yahweh God. [Translated 'Lord' in our English Bibles.] Another Hebrew word "Adoni" is the normal Hebrew word for "lord." This distinction is very important. But there is a reason for the difference in the one vowel between these two words. When referring to someone other than God as "Lord" the word "Adoni" was always used. This one letter makes a very significant difference just as the one letter between "He" and "She" makes a big difference in English. ... The Hebrew word "Adoni" occurs nearly 200 [actually 195] times in the Old Testament. In each and every single occurrence, it is a reference to a human superior and not a reference to God. And indeed, this is also the very same word used at Psalm 110:1 in reference to the Messiah, "The LORD said to my Lord," that is, "[YAHWEH] said to my Adoni." ... Conclusion It is quite clear from the evidence that once again the Trinitarian claim is utterly false. Yes the one God is Lord but that does not mean someone who is Lord is God. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Article 4) Psalm 110:1 "The LORD said to my Lord" Trinitarian Claim Trinitarians sometimes claim this verse refers to God the Father speaking to the Son at some point in the past. Examination of the Claim 1. Peter Affirms that the first "Lord" or "YAHWEH" is God the Father Therefore, having been therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and hear. For David did not ascend into the heavens but he himself says, 'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool.' Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him, both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified. (Acts 2:34-36). Peter is here referring to David's prophetic word in the Spirit whereby his seed Jesus would ascend to the right hand of the throne of God the Father ... Obviously, in Psalm 110:1 Yahweh is the Father of Jesus and not Jesus. 2. Peter Declares this Psalm was Fulfilled when God raised Jesus from the dead and made him Lord This Jesus God raised up again, of which we are all witnesses. Therefore having been exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and hear. For David did not ascend into the heavens but he himself says, "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool.' Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him, both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified. (Acts 2:34-36). Clearly, Peter teaches us that Psalm 110:1, "The LORD said to my Lord" came to pass when God exalted the man Jesus to his right hand having raised him from the dead and making him "Lord." Analysis of the Evidence 1. The Whole Psalm 110 and Hebrews Chapter 5 YAHWEH says to my Lord [Adoni], "Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool." YAHWEH sends forth from Zion your mighty sceptre. Rule in the midst of your enemies. Your people will offer themselves freely on the day you lead your host upon the holy mountains. From the womb of the morning like dew your youth will come to you. YAHWEH has sworn and will not change his mind, "You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek." YAHWEH is at your right hand. He will shatter kings on the day of his wrath. He will judge among the nations, filling them with corpses. He will shatter chiefs over the wide earth. He will drink from the brook by the way; therefore he will lift up his head. Now carefully observe what the Hebrews writer says: So also Christ did not glorify Himself so as to become a high priest, but He who said to Him, "You are my son, Today I have begotten you," just as He says also in another passage, "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety. Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation, being designated by God as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek. (Hebrews 5:5-10; cf. 7:1-15). And again, we find that that Psalm 110:1 was fulfilled when Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. In Acts, Peter quotes Psalm 110:1 and indicates this came to fulfillment when God raised Jesus from the dead and made him "Lord" sitting Jesus down at his right hand. In Hebrews, the writer quotes Psalm 110:4 and indicates this was fulfilled when Jesus became High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek when God raised him from the dead. 2. Jesus' Challenge In this passage David refers to the Messiah as "my Lord" and the LORD, YHWH,1 is speaking to David's Lord. Jesus of Nazareth had challenged the Pharisees with this passage. And here in that very same passage, we have Jesus affirming that YAHWEH his Father is not only the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob but that his Father is that one God of the Shema, "the LORD our God the LORD is one." Jesus said to them, "Is not the reason why you are wrong, that you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God? For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God said to him, "I [YHWH] am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not God of the dead, but of the living; you are quite wrong." And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the first of all?" Jesus answered, "The first is, "Hear, O Israel: The Lord [YHWH] our God, the Lord [YHWH] is one, and you shall love the Lord [YHWH] your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' The second is this, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." And the scribe said to him, "You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that He is one, and there is no other but He, and to love him with all the heart, and with all the mind, and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices." And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And after that no one dared to ask him any question. And answering, teaching in the temple, Jesus said, "How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself, inspired by the Holy Spirit, declared, "The Lord [YHWH] said to my Lord [Adoni], Sit at my right hand, till I put your enemies under your feet.' David himself calls him Lord, so how is he his son?" And the great crowd heard him gladly. (Mark 12:24-37; see 11:27).2 At Psalm 110:1, we have YHWH speaking to the Son and YHWH is obviously the Father, thereby excluding Jesus from being YHWH. Peter testifies that YHWH here is the Father of Jesus Christ. And in the context of the Shema where Jesus acknowledges that YHWH is that one God that he himself serves, an obvious reference to his Father, Jesus challenges the Pharisees on Psalm 110:1 where he identifies himself, not as YHWH, but as Adoni, the "Lord" of David to whom YHWH is speaking to in that passage. Jesus therefore identifies the one God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and also the one God of the Shema as his Father. And when a scribe responded to Jesus saying that He is one, and there is no other, Jesus responds by saying he answered wisely. This passage presents a clear testimony that Jesus acknowledge the Father alone as the one and only God. Conclusion The Bible quite clearly shows us that Psalm 110:1, "The LORD said to my Lord," is prophetic and came to pass when God raised Jesus from the dead and made him "Lord" just as Psalm 110:4 came to pass when God raised Jesus from the dead. Additionally, in the context of this verse, Jesus is identifying his Father as the one YAHWEH of the Shema where he and a Jewish scribe whole-heartedly agree, "there is no other but HE." Notes: 1. The English word "LORD" in all capital letters is used to indicate the divine name YHWH, the tetragrammaton, which is believed to be pronounced "Yahweh." ... Later Jews preferred to used the word "Adonai" in place of the divine name. 2. Matthew and Luke's account: But Jesus answered them, "You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not God of the dead, but of the living." And when the crowd heard it, they were astonished at his teaching. But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they came together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, to test him. "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord [YHWH] your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets." Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, saying, "What do you think of the Christ? Whose son is he?" They said to him, "The son of David." He said to them, "How is it then that David, inspired by the Spirit, calls him Lord [Adoni], saying, "The Lord [YHWH] said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet'? If David thus calls him Lord, how is he his son?" And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did any one dare to ask him any more questions. (Matthew 22:29-46). But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord [YHWH] the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him." And some of the scribes answered, "Teacher, you have spoken well." For they no longer dared to ask him any question. But he said to them, "How can they say that the Christ is the son of David? For David himself says in the Book of Psalms, "The Lord [YHWH] said to my Lord [Adoni], Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies a stool for your feet.' David then calls him Lord [Adoni], so how is he his son?" (Luke 20:37-44). ~~~~~~~~~~~~ The above extract of articles taken from: The Trinity Delusion