The Thief on the Cross by Keith Dyer

The Thief on the Cross

“And Jesus said to him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.” --Luke 23:43 (NET)

This passage is considered a strong proof of the immateriality of the soul, and is typically cited to support the teaching that, upon death, the souls of the redeemed go directly to heaven. In this bible account the thief [1] on the cross says to Jesus “remember me when you come into your kingdom." Clearly, he believed Jesus would indeed come into a kingdom at some future time. The prevailing interpretation understands Jesus' answer as a promise of something which far exceeded the petition. In effect Jesus said to him, "there is no need for you to wait until that day, you will be with me this very day."

This interpretation seems clear-cut, but we must ask: is that how the thief understood Jesus' words, and more importantly, is it the meaning Jesus intended? If Jesus had something different in mind, what would it be, and how would one justify it based on the text? Virtually every mainstream bible resource supports the traditional view. In fact, pick up any bible commentary and you'll find pretty much the same thing. They unequivocally declare that in using the word 'today' Jesus defines the specific time in which the thief would be with him in paradise. The meaning of the text seems unmistakable!

But there IS another way to read the verse. It is a fact that the punctuation of a bible translation is left to human design and is not considered inspired. If one simply places the comma after the word 'today', the meaning is dramatically altered. The adverb, semeron (today), would then modify the verb 'I say' rather than 'to be', and so read:
 “I tell you the truth today, you will be with me in paradise.

It has been argued that it would be nonsensical for Jesus to use the phrase "I say to you today" because it is already obvious that He was speaking today! But this argument is merely an attack on the intelligence of those who support that reading. Of course we realize that Jesus was speaking 'today'!! But it is not unheard of for one to preface a statement with the phrase “I'm telling you right now...”, in American vernacular. It's simply a way of pointing emphatically to what is being said. Similarly, could not Jesus have responded to the thief's request in such a way?

In a book by Anthony Buzzard, reference is made to a German translation which renders Luke 23:43 as “Truly I give you my assurance today: You will one day be with me in Paradise.” In a note, the author adds “Jesus does not wait until the last day, but promises the thief even now that his request will be granted.”
(Our Fathers Who Aren't in Heaven, Buzzard, p.242).

Consider also, that a similar grammatical construction is found in Acts 20:26 where Paul says to the Ephesian elders "I declare to you THIS DAY that I have been faithful". [2] Some argue that if Jesus meant “I tell you the truth today”, semeron would need to precede the verb, but that isn't necessarily true. It is clear what Paul means here. THIS DAY translates semeron, just as in Luke 23:43, and here, as in Luke 23:43, 'today' does NOT precede the verb. Should it then read "I declare to you, this day I have been faithful"? Obviously, that is NOT what Paul meant to say!

So then, we can see that moving the comma in Luke 23:43 is plausible. But we must still answer the question: why would we want to alter the the traditional understanding? The answer, in short, is that the traditional interpretation is based on faulty Biblical understanding of the human soul, and what happens at death.

Consider the following arguments...

1. What is meant by “paradise”? The word paradeisos is found three times in the Bible.

• In 2Cor 12:2-4, Paul equates “the third heaven” with “paradise”. Evidently, it is God's abode, where Christ ascended after God raised him from the dead. [3] It was there that Paul heard things which, he said, cannot be repeated or, simply could not be uttered.
• In Revelation 2:7 we read of the “paradise of God” wherein is the tree of life which is promised to the one who conquers. Many scholars equate this with the garden of Eden and may also be the same paradise that Paul visited in 2 Cor 12.
• Then, of course, in our text Jesus refers to a place called paradise which, apparently is the same paradise as described in 2 Cor 12 and Rev 2. But this is problematic; which brings us to the next argument.

2. Where in Scripture can it be shown that Jesus entered heaven that very day? According to Acts 1:3 Jesus did not ascend into heaven until at least 40 days after his resurrection. The bible clearly tells us that Jesus died, was buried, and then resurrected on the third day. Luke had previously recorded Jesus as saying “and after they have scourged him, they will kill him; and the third day he will rise again." -- Luke 18:33 (NASB).There has been much speculation on how Jesus spent those three days, but according to Matt 12:40, Jesus said of himself that he would "be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Many assert that by “heart of the earth” is meant Hades, the place described in Luke 16 in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). But it should be observed first that paradise is not mentioned in that story, only “Abraham's bosom” or “Abraham's side”. Heaven is never referred to in any other bible text as Abraham's bosom. Secondly, since it is a parable there is no reason to believe that Jesus was giving a factual account of the afterlife. In fact, the parable was not designed to teach about heaven or hell. Jesus was using a popular idea of the time to figuratively “poke a finger in the eye” of the self-righteous Pharisees. It was really about the Pharisee's attitude concerning rich and poor and of misinterpreting the Law of Moses for their own gain. The more accurate understanding of “the heart of the earth” is, idiomatically speaking, in the grave or, the tomb. Some translations read “in the lower parts of the earth”. Any explanation that has Jesus going somewhere or doing something during those three days fails or refuses to acknowledge the plain sense of Scripture that Jesus was dead and in the tomb for three days.
   
   
3. Third, as noted above, being in the earth for three days is a picture of being dead and in the grave! If Jesus, the whole person, was not actually dead, it would render his resurrection pointless, for what need would he have for a glorified body if he could already go anywhere and do anything he wanted without one?! For Jesus to be dead he must have ceased from all activities associated with life, including consciousness. In numerous passages of Scripture, we are informed that the dead are unconscious.

• “For in death there is no remembrance of thee: In the grave who shall give thee thanks?” Ps. 6:5.
• “The dead praise not YAHWEH, neither any that go down into silence.” Ps. 115 :17.
• “His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.” Ps. 146:4.

Further, he must have been truly dead in every way in order for resurrection to maintain it's literal meaning as restoration of life, not merely revivification of a dead body.

4. Fourth, Acts 2:29-36 clearly shows that David was in the grave and did NOT go to paradise [nor did he ascend to] heaven when he died? If David, a man after God's own heart, did not go to paradise or heaven when he died, why would Jesus proclaim that the thief would accompany him to paradise that very day?
5. Fifth, that the thief would not immediately go into [either] paradise or heaven is in agreement with the rest of Scripture regarding what happens after death, not the least of which is the fact that Paul calls death "an enemy" in 1Cor 15:26. If it were true that we go directly to heaven at the time of death, we should then welcome it as a friend, not refer to it as the last enemy to be conquered! Not only so, but other Scriptures put our union with Christ “at his appearing”, which means either rapture or resurrection, not at death!

6. Finally, interpreting Luke 23:43 as “..., today you will be with me” does not prove the existence of a soul existing independent of the body, but presupposes it. In other words, one must already have in mind a view that man is made up of parts, such as soul and body, or body, soul, and spirit, and then read it into the text, including the placement of the comma. But numerous scholars, going back at least as far as Eusebius, and more importantly, the Bible itself, sees man as a whole being; a single unitary person.
   
   Note the following quotes from various scholars:

• Lake 2009, pp. 586–97: ‘The English translation of nepeš by the term “soul” has too often been misunderstood as teaching a bipartite (soul and body—dichotomy) or tripartite (body, soul, and spirit—trichotomy) anthropology. Equally misleading is the interpretation that too radically separates soul from body as in the Greek view of human nature. (See body; spirit.) N. Porteous (in IDB, 4:428) states it well when he says, “The Hebrew could not conceive of a disembodied nepeš, though he could use nepeš with or without the adjective ‘dead,’ for corpse (e.g., Lev. 19:28; Num. 6:6).” Or as R. B. Laurin has suggested, “To the Hebrew, man was not a ‘body’ and a ‘soul,’ but rather a ‘body-soul,’ a unit of vital power” (BDT, 492). In this connection, the most significant text is Gen. 2:7, “the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life [nišmat hayyîm], and the man became a living being [nepeš hayyâ]” (the KJV rendering “living soul” is misleading). … It is this essential soul-body oneness that provides the uniqueness of the biblical concept of the resurrection of the body as distinguished from the Greek idea of the immortality of the soul.’
• Vogels (1994), "Review of "The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality", by James Barr", Critical Review of Books in Religion 7: 80, ^ "It is generally accepted that in biblical thought there is no separation of body and soul and, consequently, the resurrection of the body is central. The idea of an immortal soul is not a Hebrew concept but comes from Platonic philosophy. It is, therefore, considered a severe distortion of the NT to read this foreign idea into its teaching.".
• Dixon (2000) [9.2.1968], "What Is Man?", Emmaus Journal, "Several Evangelical theologians suggest that the concept of man possessing an “immortal soul” is not the teaching of the Word of God. Clark Pinnock argues that its source is Plato (or Greek philosophy in general), and not the Bible.".

One last thought. There are several accounts of people being resurrected from the dead in the bible, both Old and New Testaments. With the exception of Jesus, all resurrection accounts were to normal physical life and not immortality. In no case do we have anything written about their experiences while in the realm of the dead. There are no protests by anyone about having to leave paradise to come back to physical existence in the earth! It seems clear that death was an experience of complete insensibility. Although this is an argument from silence, it is, at least, worth considering.

In light of all the above facts, it would not be likely that Jesus was alive and in Paradise on that very day, much less, promise the same to the thief on the cross? By saying to the thief, “Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise”, Jesus associated paradise with the coming kingdom of God on earth and affirmed that the thief would have a place in that kingdom when he comes again to establish it.
And so it is with us. When we die, we sleep until Jesus returns and awakens us. At that time, and only then, “...we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.” 2 Cor. 5:10

The above article was taken from "The thief on the cross"

Some editing has been done on the above article including the following footnotes:

[1] Although strictly speaking, Luke does not describe him as a thief. Luke calls him a criminal (NASB, NKJV), a malefactor (KJV) [Luke 23.32,39]

[2] Compare also Deut. 11.8; 30.16,18,19.

[3] Alternatively and more consistent with the meaning of 'paradise' (taken from the Greek word paradeisos which always refers to an earthly garden); the paradise that Paul was caught away to (in vision) is called the third heaven, because the Bible speaks of three 'heavens'. That is, 2 Peter 3 describes the heavens which were of old and the world that perished (verses 5-6), the heavens and earth which are now (verse 7), and a new heavens and new earth (verse 13), wherein dwelleth righteousness. Paul was caught away to 'see' that future heaven, and given a vision of the coming Kingdom.

_______________________________________________________

Also please note:

The saints whether dead or alive, are not destined for Heaven.

The dead in Christ as well as those who are alive at Christ's Appearing/Coming/Parousia will be caught up to meet Christ in the air (this event is commonly called the rapture) and shall be with Christ from that moment. Henceforth, Christ will continue his descent (1 Thess. 4.15-18) to the earth whereby he will establish God's Kingdom on the earth. God's Kingdom is otherwise known as Paradise (i.e. Luke 23.42-43.)

All true believers in Christ will therefore reign with Christ upon the earth (Rev. 5.9-10)

Review and Critique of "When God Prays" by Barbara Buzzard

Review and Critique of When God Prays by Skip Heitzig

Review by Barbara Buzzard

In the first three pages of this book we have a contradiction startling and dramatic but so unnoticed that no proofreader or editorial board apparently objected. As a foreword to the book, John 17:1-26 is quoted. Verse 3 says this: “This is eternal life – to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, the one you sent.” Next, author and Pastor Skip Heitzig says this: “What makes this prayer so remarkable and so deserving of both study and emulation? For one thing, Jesus himself prayed it. This intrigues me. Why, of all people, would Jesus Christ, Israel’s Messiah and our Saviour, need to pray? After all, he’s God, right?”[1]

Actually no, not according to John 17:3 just quoted, which states that the Father alone is the true God. Nor according to 1 Corinthians 8:6 which phrases it this way: “For us there is but one God, the Father…” So at this point, I think, we are entering dangerous territory. We have just had a terrifyingly blatant contradiction: the Father is being addressed by the Son as being the only true God, and then the author says of Jesus, “After all, he’s God, right?” No, not right at all, sorry, that position has already been taken. It is occupied by the Father. At the very least we deserve a “Hey, wait a minute; I thought you just agreed that the Father was the only true God.” As A. H. Newman says of the Trinity and this sort of mental gymnastic: “It is a contradiction, indeed, and not merely a verbal contradiction, but an incompatibility in the human ideas conveyed. We can scarcely make a nearer approach to an exact enunciation of it, than of saying that one thing is two things.”[2]

Praying is a very serious activity; one needs to know to whom one is praying. To pray is not to be God. It is to seek God. We are being asked to believe that one God is praying to another. Pastor Heitzig states that “The primary goal of prayer should be to deepen our relationship with God.”[3] He also says, “We begin to see prayer for what it really is – a source of spiritual strength. Prayer fortifies us and gives us the strength to stand immovable.”[4] And please consider this from Pastor Heitzig: “In a real sense, that’s what balanced prayer is like. Instead of being an exercise in self-gratification, it’s one of spiritual edification as we spend time with God.”[5]

Let us now examine what was just put forth in this book, and not offered as theory, but as doctrine: one God trying to deepen his relationship with the other and one God who is apparently weak and prays to the other for spiritual strength. And we have one who is praying to the other for spiritual edification. In doing this, one has to change God’s own definition of Himself as being all powerful and we inevitably end up with a figure of our own imagination. Surely as Christians we are to be committed to Jesus’ view and also to his creed:
Jesus replied, “The most important commandment is this: Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is the one and only Lord” (Mark 12:29).

Is it not a tragedy of gigantic proportions that in this technically sophisticated 21st century we are still arguing that one can really mean two?! Or that you can have more than 100% (in the assertion that Jesus was 100% man and 100% God)? Pastor Heitzig states that Jesus “didn’t empty himself of being God.”[6] However, there are certain things that are impossible. We all know that there are things which God cannot do. He cannot lie; he cannot die; he cannot commit unholy acts. I would even venture to say that in defining Who God is – we might even say that God is One Who does not pray. He is all sufficient. He is where the buck stops. We must not malign His own character as the brilliant Being who set things up this way. For example: you cannot have a glass that is full of water and full of milk at the same time any more than you can have a lady who is pregnant and not pregnant at the same time or a man who is both married and unmarried. We have been taught that Jesus is a God-man. How very odd that there was a perfectly good word meaning God-man in the Greek language and yet that word was never once used of Jesus. Words, misused, corrupt the thinking. Scripture refers to Jesus as a man, even after his ascension (1 Tim. 2:5). And again, never as a God-man.

Pastor Heitzig: “In his prayer to the Father in John 17, Jesus again demonstrates his omniscience.”[7] However, on the back cover of the book, it is stated that “Throughout his life on earth, Jesus demonstrated his dependence on the Father by spending time in prayer.”[8] Can we really have a God who is dependent and yet omniscient? Is this sound? Words cannot mean what we want them to mean. Let us leave that to Alice in Through the Looking Glass. In Lectures in Divinity, however, note what is admitted: "It might tend to moderation and in the end agreement, if we were industrious on all occasions to represent our own doctrine (the Trinity) as wholly unintelligible."[9]

I am not naïve in these matters. I have felt the bitter sting of the tongue of a pastor who cursed me for not conforming to convention. I understand that most of orthodoxy engages in thinking like this: 1+1+1=1. But why if these doctrines are secure is there so much hatred, persecution and name-calling? I would venture to say that the true church is persecuted but never persecutes. What is there to fear from me? If it is true it can surely stand up to questioning and critical thinking (the very reasoning which God invites us to engage in). I am like an ant attacking an elephant, but to allow thinking like this to remain unchallenged when God gave us logic, reason, and skills to study and understand His Scriptures seems awfully wrong. There are so many scholars, seminarians, professors, writers, and historians who know that orthodoxy took some wrong turns and created or invented its theology for private motives. For example, “No responsible NT scholar would claim that the doctrine of the Trinity was taught by Jesus, or preached by the earliest Christians, or consciously held by any writers of the NT.”[10] “It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity formed no part of the original message. St. Paul did not know it, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed.”[11]
Consider, please the following points which you would have to adhere to in order to maintain the orthodox belief that “after all, He’s God, right?” (And please note what Pastor Heitzig said re[garding] Jesus, while on earth: “He did not exchange deity for humanity. He didn’t empty himself of being God. Divinity was his very nature. He only gave up certain aspects of his position.”) So please do not feel free to justify an action by saying “that was when he was human.”

As you peruse these insights, don’t allow yourself to toss them off without accepting the challenges they imply. 

If Jesus is God, what does this say about God?

1. If Jesus is God, God begat God. Heb. 1:5.
2. God humbled himself. Phil. 2:8.
3. God died. Phil. 2:8b.
4. God changed to a fleshly human. Jn. 1:14.
5. God gave his blood for sin. (What blood?) Eph. 1:7.
6. God became sin!…for us!! 2 Cor.5.21 …and God made God who had no sin to become sin for us so that in God we might become the righteousness of God.
7. Mary is the mother of God, so God had a mother, a father and, he had a God.
8. God forsook God. (My God, why hast thou forsaken me?) Mt.2 7:46.
9. God became obedient? Who would God obey? (to the point of death) Heb. 9:12.
10. God doesn’t know the day or hour he will come back? Mt. 24:36.
11. God is a high priest and offered sacrifice to God for sin. Heb. 9:26
12. God is a prophet. Mt. 21:11
13. God bore disgrace. Heb. 13:13.
14. God prayed to God in the garden, “Not my will but yours be done.” Mt. 26:39.
15. God said to God, “You are the only one who is truly God.” Jn. 17:3.
16. God offered himself unblemished to God. 1 Pet. 1:18, 19.
17. God was baptized to fulfill all righteousness. Mt. 3:15.
18. God said, “Don’t believe my words, believe God’s.” Jn. 12: 4
19. God offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to God. Heb. 5:7.
20. God reverently submitted to God. Heb. 5:7.
21. God was made perfect through suffering. Heb. 2:10.
22. God suffered and was delivered up by the foreknowledge of God. Acts 2:23.
23. God was beaten. Mt. 27:26.
24. God was the first fruits of human resurrection. 1 Cor.15:20.
25. God resurrected God from the dead. 1 Cor. 15:15.
26. God was a holy servant of God whom God anointed. Acts 4:27.
27. God will be given the throne of his father David. Lk. 1:32.
28. God was the seed of Abraham, Lk. 1:33, Judah, Lk. 1:34, David, Lk. 1:32, and woman, Gen. 3:15.
29. God was given God’s Holy Spirit without measure. Jn. 3:34 (How could God put God into God?)
30. God was GIVEN all authority in heaven and earth from God. Mt. 28:18.
31. God is greater than God. Jn. 14:28.
32. God could only speak what the Father taught him. Jn. 8:28.
33. No man has seen God at any time but God taught everyone about God as a man. Jn. 1:18.
34. God was the second ADAM! 1 Cor. 15:22, 45.
35. God approved of God. Jn. 6:27.
36. God grew in favor with God and man. Lk. 2:52.
37. At the end of his reign, God will turn the kingdom over to God. 1 Cor. 15:24.
38. God put his words in God’s mouth. Deut. 18:18.
39. God has nothing, no teaching, except what God gave him. God can do nothing of himself. Jn. 8:28.
40. God is spirit but has flesh and blood. Jn. 4:24 vs. Heb. 2:14
41. God was made like his brothers. Heb. 2:17.
42. God grew in stature and increased in wisdom. Lk. 2:40
43. God was our example of a sinless person. 1 Cor. 11:1.
44. God was made a little lower than the angels. Heb. 2:9.
45. God inherited a superior name. Heb. 1:4.
46. God was a humble servant of God. Acts 4:27.
47. God is the Lamb of God. Jn. 1:36.
48. God was born for the purpose of becoming King. Jn. 18:37
49. God revealed to God what must soon take place. Rev. 1:1.
50. God was born under the Law of God. Gal. 4:4-5.
51. God fulfilled the whole law of God. Jn. 5:17, Eph. 2:15.
52. God ascended to his God and our God. Jn. 20:17.
53. God was raised and seated on the right hand of the throne of God. Heb. 12:2.
54. God was tempted. Heb. 2:18.
55. God was made like his brothers in every way. Heb. 2:17.
56. God is an apostle and a high priest. Heb. 3:1.
57. God who made men holy and those who were made holy are of one family. So God is not ashamed to call them brothers. Heb. 2:11.
58. God was amazed at the lack of faith in Nazareth. Mk. 6:6.
59. God thanked God for his food. Acts 27:35.
60. God was the first-born from the dead. Col. 1:18.
61. God, through God, was pleased to reconcile all things to Himself.
Col. 1:20.
62. As they sailed, God fell asleep, Lk 8:23, and was awakened, Lk. 8:24.
63. God conferred on his apostles a kingdom, just as God’s Father conferred one on him. Lk. 22:29.
64. God exalted God above everyone. Phil. 2:9.
65. God was a man accredited by God with miracles, signs and wonders. Acts 2:22
66. The grace of God (unmerited favor) was upon God. Lk. 2:40.
67. God was the Holy One of God. Mk. 1:24.
68. God said, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.” Mk. 10:18.
69. God was the son…of Adam, the son of God. Lk. 3:38.
70. We are heirs of God and co-heirs with God. Rom. 8:17.
71. God had to drink the cup God gave God. Jn. 18:11.


These points come not from me but from a devoted Bible student seeking to understand the nature of God.[12]

Now if you can honestly subscribe to all of the above (and I know of no mind which can) then you can speak about God praying. Otherwise, please have a rethink. Sometimes we really do need a glass of cold water thrown in our faces. Remember, the theological system which supports this kind of thinking has
a God who can die — something is wrong here. We all need to ask ourselves how well anchored in Scripture our ideas are.

I sent a question to the Billy Graham Association, as this book was one of their recommended library selections. I wanted to be fair to them and understand the mindset of an organization that could support this book. I confess astonishment even at the title of the book, which seems to me ridiculous if not blasphemous. God, all powerful, all knowing, the Sustainer of all, the Comforter, the Shepherd, the One who blesses and heals, the all merciful, all gracious God praying? To me it is akin to speaking of God dying. It is an impossibility.

This is the answer I received: “It is often perplexing to note that Jesus addresses God in prayer. The answer to this…is that Jesus was a true man, as well as God…He is described by theologians as one Divine Person having two natures, divine and human — the God-man…In all of this great mystery, we have only glimmers of truth which are beyond human comprehension” (emphasis added).

Yes, that is just the problem — he is described by theologians as. I understand that theologians claim this but I need to see it in Scripture. When I then asked for scriptural references to document the above, I received this: “Although we are unable to offer further counsel” I was urged to seek the advice of a pastor. My questions are many but most prominent would be this: Am I really to believe what theologians theorize but which offer me only a glimmer of truth and are beyond my comprehension in any case? How am I to assent to what is incomprehensible? If I did, I would consider that a failure of clear thinking.

One thing is certain: no one in the Bible ever spoke of God praying. Neither the Billy Graham organization nor the author of “When God Prays” nor any pastor one might be referred to can show a single example of anyone in the Scriptures making their point. No one in the Bible - including Jesus - ever spoke of God praying. It seems strange to me that one would write an entire book based on a premise for which there is not a single such statement in the Bible.

The author of When God Prays says this: “Jesus’ prayer takes an important shift at this point. He first prayed for himself (John 17:1-5) and then for his immediate disciples — those who had been with him in his earthly sojourn (John 17:6-19).” Yes, in verse 5 Jesus is praying for himself but do we believe that God prayed for himself?! To whom?!

It is not my desire to be flippant or facetious or to write off this book as a no winner. I just cannot get my head around the idea which frames the whole thesis of the book. Sir Isaac Newton said this: “Tis the temper of the hot and superstitious part of mankind in matters of religion ever to be fond of mysteries and for that reason to like best what they understand least.”

To be sure, there are mysteries in Scripture, but since God has revealed Who He is (11,000 times with singular personal pronouns), Who He is - is not one of those mysteries. Nor, since we are told by God that Jesus is His Son (Luke 1:35), is the Son’s identity one of those mysteries. Granted, in our culture we misunderstand what is meant by Son of God and think it means God. Please note that Fuller Seminary’s Colin Brown says this: “To be called a ‘Son of God’ one has to be a being who is not God.”[13] I humbly submit this challenge to the status quo. Thinking is allowed in our world: “The power of reasoning was given us by our Maker, for this very end, to pursue truth.”[14]



Respectfully submitted,
Barbara Buzzard
Sept., 2012

[1] Skip Heitzig, When God Prays, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., p. 4.

[2] Sadler’s Gloria Patri, p. 39, A. H. Newman

[3] When God Prays, p. 56

[4] Ibid., p. 59

[5] Ibid., p. 60, emphasis added.

[6] Ibid., p. 18

[7] Ibid., p. 122

[8] Quotation from back cover

[9] Dr. Hey, Lectures in Divinity, 2, 235

[10] Dr. A.T. Hansen, The Image of the Invisible God.

[11] Dr. Matthews, D.D., D. Litt., God in Christian Experience, p. 180 

[12] Carol Siders, Focus on the Kingdom, August, 2012
[Carol Siders also adds another clause:

100% God and 100% man! =100% nonsense!!]

[13] Dr. Colin Brown, “Trinity and Incarnation: In Search of Contemporary Orthodoxy,” Ex Auditu, Vol. 7, 1991, p. 88.

[14] J.W. Gilbart, Logic for the Million, 1854. 

The above article was taken from:

When God Prays

Do You have to Believe in the TRINITY to Be a Christian? by Angela Moore

Do You have to Believe in the TRINITY to Be a Christian?

by Angela Moore



Recently, I had a woman tell me the following: “To be a Christian is to be a Trinitarian. To deny the Trinity is to deny Christianity.”
I question the validity of this statement when nowhere in my Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, does it state this.

This is an age old debate – whether God is one God (the Heavenly Father) which is called “Unitarianism” or He is a triple God in one (triune) - a three-person “who” in one “what” Godhead (called the Trinity).
Those who profess the Trinity doctrine basically adhere to believing that either you accept by faith this doctrine, or you’re not even a Christian. They believe it’s the litmus test for Christianity: accept by faith that Jesus is God, that he is “Deity,” or you’re not a Christian. I find that rather harsh, wouldn’t you say, when the Scriptures, and even God, does not require this to be saved? Romans 10:9 tells us “That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved.” Wouldn’t that have been an awesome time to have put in the Trinity requirement? Romans 10:9 states that Jesus didn’t raise himself from the dead. God raised Jesus and brought him back to life! To believe in the Trinity, you would have to believe that the man-part of Jesus died, but the God-part of Jesus did NOT die, because we all know that Scripture says that God cannot die, that he alone has immortality.
With just one verse, we can open up a can of worms for the Trinitarians that is hard for them to explain and still make logical sense.

In Luke 10, a certain lawyer asked Jesus, “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (which would be asking the same thing – how can I be saved from the second death – the lake of fire, and instead receive eternal life?). Jesus answered him with a question – “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” and he answered, “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” And Jesus said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this and you will live.”

The requirement to believe in the Trinity in order to be saved and considered a Christian, is blatantly missing from the Scriptures, over and over again, although Jesus is given many opportunities to bring it up and explain it. The Apostle Paul has to deal with issues about Jews not requiring Gentiles to live by the law, (i.e. circumcision, what foods to eat, etc.) yet, does not have to explain to the Jewish people that God is no longer one God, like they thought, but revealed to him now, that God is three who’s in one what. The Scriptures are amazingly silent on this debate, that would surely have taken place, had the Jewish-Christian apostles been preaching Jesus, “the second person of the Godhead.”

It is amazing to me that today’s Christians do not seem to be bothered by this, and basically use a few “proof texts” to attempt to prove their doctrine, when those same Scriptures could also be used to defend that Jesus is who he said he was – the Messiah, who was exalted to the Right hand of God. Yet so many people cling tenaciously to the Trinity and defend it with such a defensive, pit-bull attitude. I can't help wondering why. Why is this such a big deal to them, despite their doubts, despite the inability to completely understand or explain this doctrine that has so many issues with Scripture? Why do they want to believe in it? Because most want to continue believing in this, despite nagging doubts or unanswered questions that nibble on their consciences, if they allow it.

Where it originated

The belief that one must believe in the Trinity to be saved comes from the Athanasian Creed that states “Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic [universal] faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly; And the catholic [universal] faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.”
(for more, see http://lhim.org/blog/2008/11/09/can-anyone-be-saved/).

The majority of the churches went through a period of reformation and dropped many of the Catholic church’s creeds, yet have hung onto the Trinity doctrine, for fear if they lose this tenet of their faith, that they would no longer be a Christian. This is preached and taught in most churches, so people are afraid if they question or doubt this doctrine, they will no longer be followers of Jesus Christ. What a false teaching that is, that has crippled the church and made it a stumbling block for those who may have considered Christianity, yet found the Trinity doctrine mind boggling, confusing, and basically too far-fetched to want to accept by faith. Most people with whom I talk with about this subject are typically in two categories:

1) Relieved to know that they don’t have to believe that God became a baby, in order for them to be saved, and that they can use their brains & intellect that God has given them, to understand the plan He had for us before the creation of the world. That when their Bibles tell them that God is one, it really means that there is only one living God, not a 3-in-1 God that is not even defined in the Scriptures as such.

2) Clinging to the doctrine of the Trinity, to the point of debating it with me, yet somewhat resigned to admit that it isn’t something that they will truly understand until they face God someday.

The truth of the matter

If you are a Trinitarian, or if you just attend a Trinitarian church and aren’t sure of what you really believe about who God and Jesus are, then my question to you today is this: If your definition of Jesus ceased to be defined as “fully God”, does your Christian faith fail?
If you found out that Jesus is not God and in reality, he never was God, and never will be God, would you no longer have faith in Christ Jesus? Would the religion and faith of Christianity crumble and disintegrate at your feet? Would your hope be gone?

My Christianity does not depend upon Jesus being proven to be part of a godhead 3-in-1 “WHAT.” I don’t have to say that Jesus had a “dual nature” - sometimes acting as “man” and sometimes as “God” in an effort to explain discrepancies in my theory as the Trinitarian must.
(Nowhere in the Scriptures does it tell me that Jesus had a dual nature.)

My God is a “who.” He is not a ‘what’ nor a “they.” My God is Adonai - YaHWeH, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and Jesus. God did not promise Abraham in Genesis [Chapters] 15-18 that his ’seed’ would be "God." God promised Abraham that he would have a descendant – a man. God prophesied to Moses in Deut. 18 “a prophet from your countrymen.” This promised seed is Christ Jesus and through belief in him, I receive eternal life in the kingdom of which this Jesus will be the Anointed King.

It does not change my hope or downgrade my faith. God asks me to have faith in the promises made to Abraham, and declares me as righteous for that faith. God makes it very clear what and who I am to believe in. I don’t have to check my brain at the door, nor be ashamed that Jesus was who he said he was -
“I am he, the Messiah” and his Father is the only true God.

If I choose not to follow the words of Jesus, not to listen to him as God instructed (”Listen to my son!“), not believe in the God that Jesus believed in, prayed to, submitted to….then the question springs forth: “Am I really a true follower of this man Jesus, while I ignore what he believed?” Why can’t we go back to the words of Jesus, rather than defend a doctrine (Trinity) that wasn’t even fully developed until [451] AD?

I think you will find that the truth will set you free! I believe when we “get it” ~ that God doesn’t change, and that He is still the same God today, as the God of the Old Testament; and that Jesus is His Son ~ it will open up your understanding of the Scriptures so much more than you ever dreamed possible! Once you climb over the hurdle that you: "have to accept man’s creeds to be saved," and realize that you must rather simply believe in Jesus and the God-breathed Scriptures as your source of truth - then your study will come alive!

It’s exciting stuff. It’s not easy to question what you’ve always believed to be true. It’s not easy to go against the majority. But, I strongly encourage you to ask yourself - am I trying to attempt to prove and defend something that is a lot more complicated than what God and His Son Jesus ever intended for me to accept by faith? Am I clinging to something merely because I was taught that to not do so, made me cease to be a follower of Christ? Hog wash! To be a follower of Christ is to listen to him when he says in Mark 12:29 “The LORD our God is one Lord.” Jesus could not have been any clearer or plainer than that.

Conclusion

So let me rephrase the woman’s quote above to a correct understanding:
(1.) To be a Christian is to believe what Jesus believed and taught.
(2.) Jesus taught that YaHWeH our God is one Lord.
(3.) To deny what Jesus said and insist that YaHWeH is three lords in One - is to disregard the words of Jesus.
(4.) How can one be a true follower of Jesus when you don’t even listen to him?” 

The above article was taken from:

"Do You have to Believe in the TRINITY to Be a Christian?"

Some editing has been done on the above article.

Who is God in John 1:1? by Keith Dyer

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

--John 1:1 (ESV)

I have always found it interesting, to say the least, that the word “word” (logos) is capitalized here. Some years ago my son was questioning the doctrine of the Trinity after hearing arguments against it from an American convert to Islam. Now, I must confess that I was very flustered when questioned about this admittedly contradictory teaching. Before I even attempted to defend it, I prefaced my remarks with the undebatable statement, 
“it’s a mystery - you must take it by faith!” 

I knew that Trinitarian apologists depended heavily on the gospel of John, especially 1:1 to support the doctrine of the Deity of Christ and I remember going directly there to make my case. It made perfect sense to me at the time, that because the word was given a capital “W” it was obviously meant to highlight the fact that Jesus was being identified as the Word and the Word was God. If Jesus is God, and the Father is God, and the Spirit is God (although this passage says nothing about the Spirit), then the Trinity must be a true doctrine because the Bible also sets forth the truth that there is only One God. And since the Bible cannot contradict itself, the One God must be composed of three persons... case settled, the Trinity doctrine is upheld.

Of course, there were many Biblical facts I overlooked regarding the issue of Jesus’ nature, not the least of which is the irrefutable fact: that Jesus NEVER claimed the designation “God”, for himself - EVER!

But, like most other Christians today (and the last 1700 years), I was taught the supposed “cornerstone” of Christian doctrine, the Trinity, and as all Trinitarians do, whether they realize it or not, I read that doctrine into this verse, as well as every other passage of Scripture that seemed to suggest it. I didn't realize it then, but I was guilty of reading my own preconceived ideas into the Scripture, thus changing its meaning in order to support what I believed to be true.

Every good Bible student knows that in the original manuscripts there is no punctuation or distinction between upper and lower case so, logos was NOT capitalized in the original documents. Further, there is nothing special or out of the ordinary about the syntax of logos in John 1:1 compared to its appearances everywhere else in the New Testament - over 300 times! It is always translated as word, saying, thought, account, speech, etc. Only here in John 1:1 is it capitalized and purported to provide proof for the Deity of Jesus. Further, logos is not used again in any verse of new testament Scripture as a reference to Jesus; so why do the translators capitalize logos in John 1:1?

Make no mistake, this is not done as a result of pure translation! It is interpretation based on the bias of the translators. This interpretative maneuver does a disservice to the English Bible reading public because it equates the Word with a personal being, separate and distinct from God the Father, and having an existence in eternity along with Him. This Trinitarian doctrine of the literal pre-existence of Jesus is no more than inference and conjecture given credence by translators capitalizing the Word. Thus, it is read as though John were saying that “Jesus was in the beginning with God and Jesus was God,” or that “the Son was in the beginning with God and the Son was God.” 

But we must posit the question: is this what the writer, John, wanted to say? If it is indeed what John meant to say then he could easily have done so plainly. But he did not! He said “the word” was in the beginning with God, and the word was God”! Further, the word of John 1:1 is said to be God, not the Son of God, or "God the Son". Look at it again: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Who is God in this verse?
Generally it is accepted that by God, in the first instance, is meant “the Father”. But if that’s true, then to be consistent, John must be saying that the Word was with the Father, and the Word was the Father. Do Trinitarian Christians really mean to say that Jesus (the Word) was Yahweh? Were they one and the same? If, as Trinitarians claim, the terms Jesus, the Word, and God the Son are all synonymous, why didn’t John clarify by saying “in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was the God the Son”?

This traditionally accepted view of John 1:1 is fraught with inconsistencies and errors of reason. The kind of logic that identifies the Word of 1:1 as a separate being, now known as "God the Son", on the basis of verse 14 (and the Word became flesh) is frankly, unfounded and nonsensical!. It is true that the word did become flesh, and John definitely equates that word [become flesh] with Jesus. But, if the logos of John 1:1 is taken in it’s normal usage, (plan, purpose, account, message, etc.) the conclusion of a pre-existent being would not only be avoided, it would be preposterous.

...

John used Hebraisms readily understood by Jewish readers of his day.

In fact, John may well have been thinking in terms of the Hebrew davar (word), or perhaps more likely the Aramaic “memra” (word), in his use of logos. Remember that although the gospels were written in Greek, the authors, with the exception of Luke, were Hebrew and thought like Hebrews. In fact, modern scholarly work has recognized that Aramaic was the predominant language of the common people of Israel at that time, including Jesus himself. If this is true, then John would have used “word” (logos/davar/memra) as a synonym for God (Yahweh). This usage would have clear implications of John’s Jewish monotheistic roots and mindset.

The “Encyclopedia of Religion” states:

“Exegetes and theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity … Although the Hebrew Bible depicts God as the father of Israel and employs personifications of God such as Word (davar), Spirit (ruah), Wisdom (hokhmah), and Presence (shekhinah), it would go beyond the intention and spirit of the Old Testament to correlate these notions with later trinitarian doctrine.”

In his book, “The Only True God, A Study of Biblical Monotheism”, the author, Eric H.H. Chang (please read free on the internet Eric Chang, The Only True God) writes in detail regarding the usage of memra in the Targums (a commentary of the Hebrew Scriptures in Aramaic). The “Word of the Lord God” is often used in tandem with “Yahweh God” as though it were a separate being. For example, in Genesis 18:17 the Targum reads thus:

“And the Lord said with His Word, I cannot hide from Abraham that which I am about to do; and it is right that before I do it, I should make it known to Him.”

Here, “the Lord” is Yahweh and “with His Word” is memra. This distinction is not seen in English translations of the Bible. The Word here is not to be understood as a separate entity any more than we are to understand “Wisdom” as a separate being who was with God in the beginning (Prov 1:20; 3:19; 8:12). Rather, the Word, like wisdom of Proverbs, is a personification of God’s creative thought, speech, purpose and plan which, in reality, equates to God Himself since it expresses His very being. John also uses a similar grammatical construction in 1John 1:2 where he refers to “eternal life” as being “with the father”.

Take into account also that regarding the promise of the Messiah, the Bible never proclaims or even alludes to the idea that God Himself would become a man, or that a being known as “the Word” or “God the Son” would become a man. Note what God said to Moses:

“I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him.” -- Deut 18:18-19 (ESV)

Consider the critical points in this prophetic word:

1. That God Himself would “raise up” the prophet. God accomplished this "raising up" when He miraculously created and implanted human seed into the virgin Mary (Luke 1:35). In this way, the birth of Jesus, the "second Adam" (Rom 5:12-19; 1Cor 15:45-49), God's word became flesh in that HIs plan was given expression through the vehicle of a human being whom God Himself prepared for such purpose (Heb 10:5-10). Also, Luke adds the helpful insight that Jesus “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man” (Luke 2:52)
2. That this prophet would be “like you [Moses]” and “from among their brothers”, meaning he would be a man, an Israelite, who had a close relationship with God, just like Moses. The bloodline of the Messiah can be traced through the Bible, but Matthew and Luke both give a detailed genealogical list of Jesus family tree. Take special note however, of Luke’s genealogy where he traces Jesus ancestry all the way back to Adam, “son of God” (Luke 3:38). The point here is often overlooked but critical in understanding that Jesus was, according to Luke, a real human being with roots all the way back to the creation of the first man! There is no hint in Luke that Jesus was a hybrid "God-Man", only that Jesus was completely human and fathered by God. The parallel of two Adams found in Paul's' writings supports that he considered Jesus to be a man who came into existence like all men, through birth, with the exception that he was miraculously conceived.
3. That God would “put [his] my words in his mouth”. Over and over, Jesus himself declared that he did not speak his own words on his own authority but he spoke the words of his Father, God. The ... “word became flesh”, is God’s expressive mind embodied in the real flesh and blood person, Jesus of Nazareth, not a pre-existent being, God the Son, taking on human flesh. 
   The Scripture says that “the Word became flesh”, not that God the Son became flesh! There is no such person as "God the Son" in the Bible or it's teachings. However, if Jesus was indwelt by the the Word (logos) or Memra of Yahweh, then it was Jesus explicitly speaking God's words, in God’s Name, and not his own - which is exactly what Jesus said, and what Moses prophesied! (John 14:10, 24; 17:8; Deut 18:18-19)

The Last Word

Finally, if John intended to convey to his readers that Jesus was God, an equal member of a Trinity, he not only could have said it plainly in John 1:1, he would have had ample opportunity to say it plainly throughout his gospel. But conversely, he closes his gospel with the simple, straightforward, statement of intent; that “...these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,... (John 20:31). 

Neither the title “Christ” nor the phrase “Son of God” means God in the Bible. Christ is the equivalent of the Hebrew “Messiah” which means ‘anointed one’ or “chosen One”. John’s argument was the same as that of Paul and the early Church; that Jesus was the Christ, (Acts 5:42; 17:3; 18:5,28) not that he was God. Likewise, “Son of God” is a synonym for Messiah. To interpret “Son of God” as meaning “of the same substance”, as do the creeds of Christendom, is to ignore all logic and meaning of words, and to insert Greek philosophy into God's word. One cannot be both a Son of God and God, equal in every sense.

Conclusion

There is no question that most English translations of the Bible make certain passages, especially in the gospel of John, misleading. However, prayer and reason can prevail in revealing the correct interpretation of Scripture, so long as the seeker is willing to admit that he/she may have been mislead in their current understanding. Too often, we Christians ask for guidance of the Spirit to aid in our understanding, while concurrently approaching the Bible as though we already know certain things we have been taught to be factual. This is closed mindedness, and a closed mind is certainly no way to discover distinctions between truth and error. We must value truth over all, and be willing to let go of tradition, no matter how deeply seated!

A little reason goes a long way in uncovering the verity of the matter, but sadly, the doctrine of the Trinity has prevailed for so long, because of group mentality and fear, that an incomprehensible mystery is now touted as divine truth.Someone has perceptively said, “A lie repeated often enough carries more weight than the truth!” 

It’s time for Christians to rethink this incomprehensible doctrine, ask honest questions, and desist from the reliance of creeds that were formulated centuries after the death of Christ and the apostles!

The more I study, pray, and contemplate this truth - that Jesus is the Son of God, not God the Son - the more concerned I become of the ramifications for today’s church. I cannot help but wonder how God will judge this enormous deception and twisting of Scripture that has invaded His Church and deified His Christ, usurping the place of God the Father who, according to Jesus, is the only true God! (John 5:44; 17:3) I can only pray that with the plethora of information available today via the internet, along with the many quality books being written on the subject, more and more people will become enlightened to the truth.
If God could get through to me, having been thoroughly entrenched in the false doctrine of the Trinity for almost 40 years, then I am convinced that He can, and will, make Himself known to others who sincerely seek the truth!

The above article was taken from:

"Who is God in John 1:1?"

Some editing has been done on the above article.

Jesus Is the Son of God and Was FULLY Human

Jesus Is the Son of God and Was FULLY Human

Jesus is not God.

Jesus asked his disciples,

“Who do men say that the Son of man is?”

After a few answers, Peter said,

You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Peter did not say, “You are God.”

Note what Jesus said to Peter,

Jesus answered and said to him, You are blessed, Simon, son of Jonah, 

for flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but My Father in Heaven.

Matthew 16:17

The doctrine of the Trinity has been around for centuries and people have been fed the lie that Jesus is God. If one were to say that Jesus is not God, but rather the Son of the living God, as the Father revealed to Peter,

• one will be accused of leaving the faith, 
• called apostate, 
• distance themselves from you, 
• tell you to go back into your prayer closet, 
• to fast and pray until God reveals you have fallen for a lie that Jesus is not God.

A few centuries ago, one would be KILLED for going against the Trinity lie and telling the truth. One outstanding testimony of this is when John Calvin had Michael Servetus burned at the stake to say such blasphemy that Jesus was not God and did not believe in the Trinity teaching. Today all they can do is shun you and say they will pray for you, hoping you will return to the faith. It’s not the faith in the words of Jesus, but rather to come back to the faith in the Trinity doctrine!

The Trinity doctrine is just another one of the most deceptive lies from the Devil to keep one away from understanding the true Gospel of the Kingdom of God that Jesus and his disciples preached.

Yes, what horror, what blasphemy to say that Jesus is not God, but that he is the Son of God!
Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

The chief priest, the elders and all the sanhedrins felt the same!
To simply tell the truth that Jesus is the Son of God, and nothing more, is pure blasphemy among Christians today!
Look at the following story when Jesus was arrested,

And the chief priests and the elders and all the sanhedrin sought false witness against Jesus, in order to put Him to death. But they found none; yea, though many false witnesses came, they found none. But at last two false witnesses came up and said, This one said, I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days. And standing up, the high priest said to Him, Do you answer nothing? What is it that these witness against you? But Jesus was silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, I adjure you by the living God that you tell us whether you are the Christ [Messiah], the Son of God. Jesus said to him, You said it. I tell you more. From this time you shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of the heavens. Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, now you have heard his blasphemy. Matt. 26:59-65

Today is it blasphemy to say Jesus is the Son of God and nothing more! They want us to add and say
“God the Son,” when Jesus nor any writers of the NT said these things.

When reading the Bible, Jesus ALWAYS made it clear that he is not the Father, but that he has a Father, and that he has a God. To ask the question, “Does Jesus have a God?” There is complete silence. I have asked some questions whether or not they believe what Jesus said,
When Jesus was asked what is the first commandment of all?

“Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is:

“Hear, Israel. The Lord OUR GOD is ONE Lord.”

Jesus said in his prayer to the Father before his crucifixion,

“And this is everlasting life, that they may KNOW YOU, the ONLY TRUE GOD,

and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.”

Would it be hard to admit that Jesus has a God?

“Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them,
I ascend unto MY FATHER, and YOUR FATHER; and to MY GOD, and YOUR GOD.” (John 20:17)

I have only asked, Do you believe this? I do not get any kind of acknowledgment that what Jesus said above is true. It is totally ignored. Why? Because these verses alone destroys the Trinity teaching. Instead, I am told to get off the Internet, stop going to the fellowships and websites, and fast and pray. It’s okay for them, but not for me? But no matter what is said, they will not acknowledge that what Jesus says is true. All they can do is go to other verses (that seem to prove the deity of Christ) to try and disprove what Jesus said!
Jesus quotes and affirms the creed of Israel which is the first commandment,

“Hear, Israel. The Lord OUR GOD is ONE Lord,” Mark 12:29

And also tells us that there is only one Father,

And don’t call anyone on earth ‘Father,’ because YOU HAVE ONLY ONE FATHER, the one in heaven. Matthew 23:9

But yet the Trinity teaching wants us to believe that Jesus is God, Jesus is the Father and Jesus is the holy Spirit, and have us do some heavy mental gymnastics to try and shove it to make it all ONE! They will use pictures and give illustrations to try and explain what they cannot explain or even understand themselves, but yet we have to accept it by “faith” if all else fails. And if you don’t accept it or you are one who has renounced the silliness you once believed was true because God has revealed something totally different, you have left the faith! You are not even considered SAVED! To reject the Trinity teaching will cost you your salvation!

On the other hand, to accept the fact that Jesus was purely human and nothing more, a man,
the Son of God, who was made like unto his brethren (Heb 2:17), a seed of David (John 7:42; Rom. 1:3), who was tempted to sin in all points as we are yet without sin (Heb. 4:15), who was crucified (Matt. 28:5), and died as all humans do, that we are ALSO NOT SAVED! It’s a no win situation!

Is it hard to believe what Jesus said? Is it had to believe that he was human, that he was the Son of God, that Jesus has a God, and that Jesus has a Father, ... The very one you say you follow, do you not believe him? Are you going to reject what he taught? How can you say you believe him and love him but won’t admit or even acknowledge what he said is true?

Jesus was always fully human, in a human body, and is still a man and will return with that body. Just as he resurrected in a body, so shall we, and enter into the Kingdom of God.

Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. Luk 24:39

When Jesus the Messiah was resurrected, he still had flesh and bones! Jesus had a corruptible body before his death, as we all have, but was raised by God who changed the corruptible body into an incorruptible body.

“For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.” 1 Co 15:53

And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.” Acts 1:10,11

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

They saw him go up in his resurrected body, no more corruptible. In the same body and in the same manner shall he return!

To say Jesus is fully human and fully God is nonsense!

• God did not begat God. 
• God did not forsake God. 
• God did not pray to God. 
• Abraham was not promised that “God” would be his seed and heir. 
• God did not have to drink the cup God gave Him. 
• God did not give God authority. 
• God did not approve God. 
• God did not have to increase in wisdom. 
• God is not the Lamb of God. 
• God did not ascend to God. 
• God did not forsake God. 
• God did not raise God from the dead.

As you can see, all is such nonsense!

The above article was taken from:

"Jesus Is the Son of God and Was FULLY Human"

Some editing has been done on the above article.