Genesis 1 - Fusion Bible Version

My own updated Version of Genesis 1 based on the text of the "World English Bible":

1 

In the beginning, God created the sky and the earth. 

2 

The earth had nothing but chaos. Very dense fog was on the surface of the deep and God’s Divine Force was hovering over the surface of the waters.

3 God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw the light, and saw that it was good. God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “Day”, and the darkness he called “Night”. There was evening and there was morning, the 1st time period set apart.

6 God said, “Let there be an expanse in the middle of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 God made the expanse, and divided the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. 8 God called the expanse “Sky”. There was evening and there was morning, a 2nd time period set apart.

9 God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together to one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 God called the dry land “Earth”, and the gathering together of the waters he called “Seas”. God saw that it was good. 11 God said, “Let the earth yield grass, herbs yielding seeds, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with their seeds in it, on the earth”; and it was so. 12 The earth yielded grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with their seeds in it, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening and there was morning, a 3rd time period set apart.

14 God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of sky to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs to mark seasons, time periods, and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of sky to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of sky to give light to the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening and there was morning, a 4th time period set apart.

20 God said, “Let the waters abound with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of sky.” 21 God created the large sea creatures and reptiles and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed, after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind. God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 There was evening and there was morning, a 5th time period set apart.

24 God said, “Let the earth produce living creatures after their kind, livestock, creeping things, and animals of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. 25 God made the animals of the earth after their kind, and the livestock after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind. God saw that it was good.

26 God said, “Let Us make humans in Our image, after Our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created humans in His own image. In God’s image He created humans; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them. God said to them, “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 God said, “Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree, which bears fruit yielding seed. It will be your food. 30 To every animal of the earth, and to every bird of the sky, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food;” and it was so.

31 God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. There was evening and there was morning, a 6th time period set apart.

John 1 - The "Fusion Bible Version"

This is my own updated version of John Chapter 1, based on the text of the "World English Bible."

I'd love to see your comments.

The Good News About Jesus, written by John the Ambassador

1 In the beginning the Logos existed, and this Logos was close to God, and the Logos had the same nature as God. 2 This same Logos existed in the beginning with God. 3 All things were created through the Logos. Without him not even one thing was created that has ever been created. 4 In the Logos was life, and the life was the light of people. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness hasn’t overcome it. 6 There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John [the one who immerses]. 7 John came as a witness, that he might testify about the Light, that all people might trust in God through him. 8 He was not the Light, but was sent that he might testify about the Light. 9 The True Light that enlightens everyone was coming into the world.

10 The Logos was in the world, and the world was created through him, and the world didn’t recognize him. 11 The Logos came to his own people, the Jews, and those who were his own people didn’t receive him. 12 But as many as received this Logos, to them he gave the right to become God’s children, to those who trust in his Name and what it stands for: 13 who were born not of blood, nor of the desire of the Flesh, nor of the desire of humans, but who were born of God.

14 The Logos truly became a human being, residing in a human temple, and lived among us. We saw his dignity and honor, such dignity and honor as of the only-born Son from the Father, full of divine favor and truth. 15 John [the one who immerses people] testified about the Logos. He cried out, saying, “This was the One of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me, because he existed before me.’” 16 From the Logos' fullness we all received unearned kindness upon unearned kindness. 17 For the Law was given through Moses. Unearned kindness and truth were realized through Jesus the Chosen King of God. 18 No one has seen God at any time. The only God born from God, who has the closest relationship to the Father, this One has made him known.

19 This is John’s testimony, when the Jewish leaders sent priests and Levite Temple assistants from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?” 20 John declared, and didn’t deny, but he declared, “I am not the Chosen King of God.” 21 They asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah the inspired proclaimer who has returned?” John said, “I am not.” “Are you THE Inspired Proclaimer [foretold by Moses]?” He answered, “No.” 22 They said therefore to John, “Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?” 23 He said, “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the the Lord, Jehovah,’ as Isaiah the inspired proclaimer said.”

24 These ones who had been sent were from the Pharisees. 25 They asked John, “Why then do you immerse people, if you are not the Chosen King of God, nor Elijah the inspired proclaimer who has returned, nor THE Inspired Proclaimer [foretold by Moses]?” 26 John answered them, “I immerse people in water, but among you stands One whom you don’t know. 27 He is the One who comes after me, who is preferred before me, whose sandal strap I’m not worthy to loosen.” 28 These things were done in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was immersing people.

29 The next day, John saw Jesus coming to him, and said, “Behold, the Sacrificial Lamb of God, who takes away the evil of the world! 30 This is the One of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, because he existed before me.’ 31 I didn’t know that Jesus was the One, but for this reason I came immersing people in water: that his identity would be revealed to Israel.” 32 John testified, saying, “I have seen the unseen force descending like a dove out of heaven, and it remained on him. 33 I didn’t recognize Jesus as the One, but God, who sent me to immerse people in water, he said to me, ‘On whomever you will see the unseen force descending, and remaining on him, that is he who immerses people in the unseen force which is sacred.’ 34 I have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God.”

35 Again, the next day, John [the one who immerses] was standing with two of his students, 36 and he looked at Jesus as He walked, and said, “Behold, the Sacrificial Lamb of God!” 37 The 2 students heard John speak, and they followed Jesus. 38 Jesus turned, and saw them following, and said to them, “What are you looking for?” They said to him, “Rabbi” (which is to say, being interpreted, "Teacher"), “where are you staying?” 39 Jesus said to them, “Come, and see.” They came and saw where he was staying, and they stayed with Jesus that day. It was about 4 PM. 

40 One of the 2 who heard John [the one who immerses], and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. 41 Andrew first found his own brother, Simon, and said to him, “We have found the Chosen King!” (which is, being interpreted, "Christ" or "Messiah"). 42 Andrew brought Simon to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called 'Cephas'” (which is by interpretation, "Peter"). 43 On the next day, Jesus was determined to go out into Galilee, and he found Philip. Jesus said to him, “Follow me.” 44 Now Philip was from Bethsaida, of the city of Andrew and Peter. 45 Philip found Nathanael, and said to him, “We have found the One whom Moses in the Law, and the Inspired Proclaimers, wrote: Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of Joseph.” 46 Nathanael said to him, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and see.”

47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and said about him, “Behold, a descendant of Jacob indeed, in whom is no deceit!” 48 Nathanael said to Jesus, “How do you know me?” Jesus answered him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” 49 Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are King of Israel!” 50 Jesus answered him, “Because I told you, ‘I saw you underneath the fig tree,’ do you trust in me? You will see greater things than these!” 51 Jesus said to Nathanael, “Most certainly, I tell you, later on you will see heaven opened, and the heavenly messengers of God ascending and descending on the New Adam.”

Common Logical Fallacies Used

*** "You can't trust anything the Bible says, it was written thousands of years ago by farmers, fishermen, and shepherds!" ***

That is actually two logical fallacies rolled into one: "Chronological Snobbery" (rejecting an idea based solely on when it was originated) and "Ad Hominem" (focusing on the people making the argument, instead of on the argument itself).

*** "I know the Bible is inspired because the Bible says so. And I believe what the Bible says because it is inspired." ***

This is "Circular Reasoning."

*** "Religion is evil. Religion requires mindless faith. Religion is responsible for so many evil acts in the world." ***

This is a huge example of the "Hasty Generalization" fallacy. Lumping all religious people together, from all varieties of organizations, faith, and belief systems, and labeling them "Religion," and declaring that they all commit evil or are part of an evil entity. 

It is also a classic case of "Straw Man" fallacy-- arguing against a monolithic entity or group which doesn't even exist, and then claiming you have refuted every religious person.

*** "We should only accept scientific evidence as truth, and not philosophical claims." ***

This is a "Self-Defeating Claim," because the claim itself is a philosophical claim, therefore, if you accept this philosophical claim demanding that you reject philosophical claims, you must also reject this claim. It destroys itself.

In addition, science itself is based on numerous philosophical ideas, so rejecting philosophy as truth means rejecting science as truth as well.

*** "We have used logical, rational thinking to arrive at the conclusion that logical and rational thinking are, in reality, illusions, which do not provide accurate pictures of reality." ***

First, this is "Self-Defeating:" If you've refuted the idea of rational thinking by using rational thinking, you have invalidated your own finding, because you discovered this using a flawed, invalid method (rational thinking).

Second, you cannot claim to know the reality of something, if your conclusion is that we do not know the reality of things.

Lions, Gorillas, Androids, and God

Popular atheist arguments against God include:

"Yahweh, as described in the Bible, cannot be good because a good God would never kill women and children."

"My moral values are far superior to Yahweh's morals in the Bible!"

Yet, atheists do not impose human moral values and obligations upon lions, gorillas, or grasshoppers. We don't put a lion on trial for "murdering" a gazelle or even a human. We don't put a gorilla on trial for "murdering" a fellow gorilla. The reason for this, is because atheists realize that moral values do not apply or work the same way across different species.

In addition, if we humans were to invent a race of androids like "Data" in Star Trek the Next Generation, we would program our moral values into the androids, and we would reserve the right (as creator/inventor) to deactivate the androids if they began to interfere or impact our lives negatively, began hurting people, or even if they began destroying our property or other androids. (A similar example would be the right of a society or government to arrest, punish, or put to death dangerous criminals)

Both of these principles (the acknowledgement that moral values don't apply the same across different species, and the right of a creator of androids to deactivate dangerous ones) should be pretty self-evident, even among atheists. I know I would be very interested in seeing atheists make any logical arguments against these two principles.

Now apply these principles to Yahweh-- Yahweh (if He exists) is a different species than we are, and therefore, we know that we don't have the right to impose our human moral values and obligations on Him. In addition, assuming He exists, Yahweh created us and governs us, thus giving Him the right to "deactivate," "arrest," or "put to death," any evildoers that He deems dangerous.

Once we get atheists to agree on these two principles, they end up losing many of their moral arguments against Yahweh or against any other "God." But if atheists still cling to those arguments even after admitting they are faulty, they are showing their double-standards, illogical thinking, and desperation.

Another key point: In order for atheists to claim moral superiority over the God of the Bible, they must be using a separate (3rd party) standard or umpire of morality, by which they are judging Yahweh "inferior" to their own moral values. But, when asked about this, atheists will acknowledge that no such standard of morality exists in reality. All moral values are subjective and relativistic within the worldview of atheism.

One more thing: If atheists are not under moral obligation to save gazelles from lions or to save every gorilla from being attacked by another gorilla, then why would Yahweh be under moral obligation to save every human, especially since the Bible says that comparing God to humans is like comparing humans to grasshoppers?

If atheists feel no guilt in killing insects or killing cows, pigs, chickens, etc., then why should God feel guilt in killing human beings?

The Case For Theism

The Case For Theism

"Theism" here means "belief in a god" or "the worldview that an intelligent designer created the universe and life." ("God" here means a being with a mind who initiated and/or wound-up the universe, and designed life on earth)

The most common claim that I see atheists making on Twitter, is that "NO EVIDENCE" exists in support of belief in a God.

This blog post will remove any excuse atheists have for claiming "no evidence exists" in support of an Initiator. Atheists can still reject this evidence as "weak," but they cannot truthfully say it does not exist.

Now, it is true that we do not have "observable, repeatable, falsifiable, empirical, scientific" evidence conclusively proving that an Initiator exists, but we do have many lines of philisophical, experiential, and logical evidence.

And... here... we... go:

1:) Many leading scientists, including Stephen Hawking, say that the space-time-matter universe had a beginning at the Singularity/Big Bang. Time itself did not exist, and then it came into existence. Things can only naturally happen by cause-and-effect within time. So the very event of time itself coming into existence, is a "supernatural" event (something beyond or outside of the natural course of cause-and-effect).

2:) The universe and earth appear to be very unlikely and improbably fine-tuned to support life. Even Stephen Hawking and other leading scientists admit this.

(So far, we have the universe coming into existence by a means that is beyond the natural cause-and-effect, and we have very improbable fine-tuning for life, both pointing toward the existence of an Initiator beyond our universe)

3:) Science has never observed life naturally developing from non-life on its own, therefore, the scientific position would be to assume that it did not naturally happen on its own (This points to either an Initiator/God or to extraterrestrials seeding and engineering life on earth and beginning evolution).

4:) The existence of a "Cosmic Mathematician" (Mind beyond our universe) would explain how a universal working system of mathematics just happened to be built into the universe.

5:) A worldview with an Initiator and "Law-Giver" building moral values into His creatures makes more sense with our experiences of moral obligation, guilt, and our sense of justice. Without the existence of a "Law-Giver" or "3rd party objective moral umpire," then right and wrong are merely the subjective opinions of each person.

6:) A worldview with an Initiator building into His human creation's brains, the ability to discern true from false, fits better with our view of reality, and with our assumption that our brains are giving us truthful, accurate information.

7:) Things humans deeply desire actually exist, for example: food, water, sexual partner, money, even the ability to fly (by creating jets, planes, etc). The desire of a "Higher Power" is deep in humans, going back hundreds of thousands of years, and in every part of the earth.

8:) Atheists admit that the basis for accepting logic, math, and moral obligations, is the fact that a large majority of human beings experience these things and intuitively know them to be true. A majority of humans have also experienced a "Higher Power" or spiritual things, and the answer to silent prayers.

Let me know what you think.

The Case Against Atheists

Introduction:

The reason I entitled this "The Case Against Atheists" instead of "The Case Against Atheism" is that many atheists claim that atheism is not a belief system, makes no claims, and has no requirements to follow, so there's no way to argue against atheism itself. I will go along with this idea, and argue against the most frequently used arguments of atheists instead of atheism itself.

Disclaimer # 1: This is NOT an argument against atheism or ALL atheists. Not at all. If atheism is not a belief system, then there is no way anyone can make an accurate argument against ALL of atheism or EVERY atheist. No, rather this is an argument against the most frequently used claims and arguments made by the atheists I speak to on Twitter (account @AnnotatedBible). These are NOT exact quotes, they are paraphrases of the arguments and claims made by these atheists. If you want to see the actual discussions, feel free to go through my Twitter timeline.

Disclaimer # 2: If you don't make any of these claims or arguments, then this blog post DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU, so you have no reason to take offense.

In this argument, "atheism" will mean "the lack of belief in any gods," and therefore automatically implies the acceptance of "naturalism," which is the worldview that nothing exists or happens unless it has a natural explanation. Atheism and naturalism go hand-in-hand. A "god" is here defined as a being beyond nature with a mind, which caused our universe to exist.

I am beginning with the "Case Against Atheists" before I post the "Case For Theism," because it does no good to present an argument for the existence of a God, as long as atheists are still fully convinced that atheism is the "most logical" or "superior" position to hold. So, priority one is showing all of the fallacies, errors, and double-standards within the claims of atheists.

Atheist Claims are Self-Defeating and Contain Many Double-Standards:

"You must only accept scientific evidence as truth"

The popular atheist claim, "You must only accept scientific evidence as truth," is self-defeating (destroys itself) because that very claim is not a scientific claim, it is a philosophical claim. If we accept that philosophical claim, then we must also reject that claim because it is not scientific. So, right off the bat, we see that there is no reason to accept the atheist's claim that we should not believe anything without scientific evidence. (FYI -- atheists usually define "scientific evidence" as that which is "observable, repeatable, and falsifiable.") Not only is this claim self-defeating, but it is also arbitrary and not even followed by many atheists, who accept mathematical theories, subjective moral ideas, and the laws of logic within the mind, all without empirical scientific evidence.

"The Multiverse Explains the Fine-Tuning (and perhaps the origin) of our Universe"

This claim presents a major double-standard among many atheists, because the Multiverse Theory was not based upon any empirical observable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence, instead it was originally put forward based upon mathematical and philisophical theories in order to explain the "fine-tuning for life" we see in the universe, without the need for an intelligent "Initiator" or "Clockwinder" to exist. So, atheists who accept and promote the Multiverse Theory while at the same time ridiculing others for accepting God based on philisophical and other non-empirical theories, are hypocrites with a huge double-standard.

In addition, the Multiverse Theory doesn't explain the origin, instead, it postulates the idea of billions of other universes which also need explanation, thus violating "Occam's Razor."

"The Moral Values of Modern Atheists are Much Superior to the Moral Values of Yahweh"

 In order to make this claim, there must exist an objective (3rd party) standard (law or umpire) of morality, against which the modern atheist can judge or condemn Yahweh's morals. The problem for atheists is, without some kind of "God" or "Universal Law-Giver," the atheist has absolutely zero objective standards or umpires they can use to claim superiority over the moral values of Yahweh. Atheists are merely judging Yahweh against their own subjective feelings and opinions, or some kind of imaginary moral law in their mind, which doesn't exist.

In addition, atheists usually agree that human moral values only apply within our own species, and that is why we put humans on trial for crimes, but not apes or lions on trial for killing others. Therefore, our human morals would not apply to Yahweh in the same way they apply to other humans, if Yahweh belongs to a different species. So many atheists hold quite a few double-standards when it comes to judging Yahweh.

"Logic, Mathematics, and Morals are the Things We Should Base our Lives On"

Atheists may not say this exact phrase, but many of them do have this idea. The inconsistency is, none of these things are based upon empirical, observable, repeatable, falsifiable scientific evidence. Instead they are based upon "experiential" or "self-evident" evidence. The scientific method itself is based upon, and requires, the use of these self-evident things, otherwise we could never even practice science. So any atheist who accepts these three things, while at the same time ridiculing others for accepting God based upon experiential (or self-evident) evidence, is being hypocritical.

"Logic tells us that the only things which exist are those which can be naturally explained by physical processes"

Atheists are using logical thinking and rational inference to argue in favor of a worldview (naturalism) which places extreme doubt on any reason why we should trust our brain to be able to perform logical thinking or rational inference that prefers truth over falsehood.

"The time-space-matter universe began to exist with no cause"

First off, this statement a logical absurdity, which makes a mockery of everything we see and experience with science and with our reasoning.

Secondly, if the time-space-matter universe can begin to exist with no cause, why ridicule others for believing that God "just exists?"

Thirdly, and most importantly, if this is true, then it means that naturalism is false, because the event of time beginning to exist happened without a natural cause, therefore, things can happen outside or beyond the natural.

"Moral values evolved and developed separately from religious beliefs in early humans, therefore, that is why we are free to reject religion while clinging to moral values"

First of all, atheists have zero scientific, repeatable, observable, falsifiable evidence proving that, so why do they accept this claim? Secondly, even if this is true, what basis do atheists use to judge that morals are necessary for human survival but religious beliefs are not necessary for human survival?

"Atheism is not a belief system and it makes no claims, therefore you cannot lump atheists together as making the same claims." (But then sometimes the same atheists make this statement: "You are making a 'straw man' argument against atheists. NO atheist ever makes that claim!")

So, I am not allowed lump atheists together as making the same arguments, but you are? If no two atheists follow the same belief system, then how can you possibly claim to speak on behalf of other atheists, or to claim that you know that NO atheist has made the claim that I am arguing against?

"Religion is evil"

First, an atheist saying this is making the logical fallacy known as "hasty generalization." Secondly, how does the atheist define "evil" and what are they basing that judgment on. Thirdly, this has nothing to do with whether or not a God exists. And in order to truthfully make this claim, wouldn't an atheist be required to examine each and every different religious group and determine whether that group's beliefs cause more evil than they do good?

"No evidence for any god exists anywhere"

First, this implies that the atheist is omniscient (all-knowing) and has examined everything that exists in the universe. Secondly, the atheist is almost always referring to "scientific, repeatable, observable, falsifiable evidence" whenever they make this claim. As we have seen from above, it is self-defeating to claim that we must only accept scientific claims. Thirdly, by making a definite claim like this, the atheist has the burden of proof to prove that this claim is true.

"A good God would never allow unnecessary suffering"

This is actually one of the better atheist arguments, which makes logical sense. The problem is, though, how does an atheist define the word "good," and what standard or umpire are they judging God against? In addition, how would an atheist know which suffering is "unnecessary" (or what the end result is) unless they have all-knowledge (including knowledge of the future)?

Even if this argument successfully proves that God wouldn't be "good" according to certain human standards of "good" and "evil," it has absolutely no bearing on whether a God exists or not.

"Atheism is the superior mindset to hold, because that is the mindset we were born with"

In my opinion, this argument is the worst, weakest argument in favor of atheism in history. We were also born without a knowledge of science, math, reading, writing, the laws of logic, philosophy, etc., etc. If it is true that the "superior" mindset to have is the one we are born with, then we must also abandon science, logic, math, reading, writing, etc.

Also, what objective basis or standard are atheists using to proclaim any mindset or worldview is "superior" to another?
______________________________________________________________________________

Conclusion (for now):

Many atheist arguments boil down to this (once you remove all the fancy words and hyperbole):

1:) I don't like the idea of God.
2:) I don't like the Bible.
3:) I hate the morals found in the Bible.
4:) I believe you should only accept science, even though I accept other things in my life.

I will be adding more to this blog post soon. Let me know if there are any arguments you wish me to add.

Let me know what you think in the comments below. I welcome ANY and ALL comments, opinions, arguments, refutations, suggestions, etc.

My e-mail address is DanielPHarder@gmail.com. I am @AnnotatedBible on Twitter.

The Best Atheist Questions Ever

Fellow Christians, we need to read, examine, study these questions, so we can give good answers.

Atheists, skeptics, agnostics: Please add your own questions in the comments, or by emailing me at DanielPHarder@gmail.com, or tweet me at @AnnotatedBible

1:) If our consciousness couldn't have evolved naturally, and had to be created by a God with intelligence, then how did God get His consciousness? If it cannot evolve naturally, then God couldn't naturally have consciousness either. On the other hand, if God COULD evolve consciousness naturally, then why couldn't human beings also?

2:) If our morals reflect the Creator's morals, and if Yahweh is the Creator, then why are we disgusted by many of Yahweh's actions in the Old Testament? (killing infants, killing entire nations, allowing rapists to marry their victims, allowing Israel to have slaves, allowing soldiers to take women captive to become "wives", putting unruly children to death, etc.)

3:) If Jesus Christ was the absolute perfect reflection of our Creator's moral feelings, and if the Creator is Yahweh, then why were Yahweh's actions in the Old Testament so much different than Christ's in the New Testament, sometimes even the exact opposite?

4:) Even if a Creator / Designer does exist, then how do we know that this Creator is like Yahweh, or Jesus, or Allah, etc.

5:) Why should we accept the Bible as a holy book from God, but reject the Quran, the Book of Mormon, etc, etc.

6:) Are God's actions "right" because He says so, or are His actions "right" because they agree with some kind of standard of "justice" that exists apart from God?

7:) When the Bible says "There is no injustice with God," or "God is just," what standard of "justice" or "injustice" is the Bible comparing Yahweh to?

8:) What evidence exists that points to a designer / creator?

9:) What evidence exists proving that the Bible is inspired by God?

10:) Why did Jesus condemn the Pharisees for failing to kill disrespectful children? (Mark 7:9-13)

11:) If God's Law to Moses was absolutely perfect in every way (as Psalm 119 appears to say), how could it later be replaced and referred to as "imperfect" and "obsolete," and "not God's ideal from the beginning"? (Matthew 19:7-9, Hebrews 8:13, Hebrews 8:7)

12:) If Yahweh or Jesus commanded you to kill someone, would you do it? Why or why not?

13:) If God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient, why does He allow suffering?

14:) How would we know Jesus was empowered by God and not Satan?

Bad Trinity Arguments

Both Trinitarians and Non-Trinitarians have made some really bad or weak arguments in defense of their doctrines or attacking the doctrine of their opponents. Below, my goal is to expose these weak arguments so that people stop repeating them.

Bad Argument #1 (made by some Trinitarians):
"John 15:13 says the greatest act of love is dying for others. Jesus did this. If Jesus is not Yahweh, then that means someone besides Yahweh performed the greatest act of love. No creature could perform a greater act of love than Yahweh."

My Refutation to Argument #1:
Trinitarians admit that God the Son died for us, NOT God the Father or God the Spirit, therefore, this entire argument and interpretation falls apart because they still have God the Father and God the Spirit failing to perform the greatest act of love.

The simple explanation of John 15:13 is that it is referring to the greatest act of love that HUMANS can perform, not the greatest act of love that spirit beings can perform.

However, even if, in the remote possibility that John 15:13 is saying that dying for someone is the greatest act of love ANYONE can perform (including spirit beings), then we should examine John 14:12, where Jesus says His disciples will perform greater works than He did. So we can see that performing greater works than Jesus did does NOT mean you are a greater person than Jesus, just like Jesus performing a greater act of love than the Father does NOT make Jesus a greater person than the Father (John 14:28, 1 Corinthians 15:24-28).

Bad Argument #2 (made by some Non-Trinitarians):
"Jesus prayed to God, it makes no sense for Jesus to pray to Himself if He is God."

My Refutation to Argument #2:
This argument fails to take into account the fact that the Trinity Doctrine teaches that Jesus is a different person from the Father, and therefore, Jesus the Son was speaking to God the Father when He was praying, not speaking to Himself.

This is actually a good argument to use against Modalists / Oneness Believers, however.

An old post I made defending the Trinity back in June, 2009

For the sake of transparency, honesty, genuineness, and to see how I have progressed in my understanding of the Scriptures, I am posting this old essay I wrote in June, 2009, attempting to "destroy" the best arguments for Non-Trinitarianism.

From June 7, 2009:

The Case for Unitarianism:

Unitarianism -- The Belief that God is only One Person (usually The Father) and that Jesus is one of God's creations (usually an exalted angel and/or just a great human being). Jehovah's Witnesses and other "Christian" religions that teach that Jesus is not God subscribe to some form of Unitarianism.

I have never found a well-reasoned, well-argued, logical presentation of the doctrine of Unitarianism (the belief that God is only One Person, The Father, not Three Persons).

I am a Trinitarian Christian, but in this thread, I will play the so-called "devil's advocate" and will attempt to present the best possible, logical argument in favor of Unitarianism from the Scriptures, and then proceed to refute the teachings of Unitarianism.

It's not my aim to help give Jehovah's Witnesses "more ammunition" to argue against the Trinity. My belief is that if I can present the best, most well-reasoned, logical case in favor of Unitarianism and then go on to show that Unitarianism (at its finest) is false according to the Bible, then we will have made a much stronger case against Unitarianism than if we had simply argued against the flawed, illogical arguments that I have seen used by Jehovah's Witnesses and other non-Trinitarians.

And, on the flip side, sincere Unitarians can use this as a starting point to perhaps develop better, more logical, more Scripturally-based arguments in support of their beliefs.

In this way (in the words of Obama) I intend to at least "elevate the debate" to a higher level, and get rid of the "strawmen" and "caricatures." And maybe this will cause all sides to think deeper about why they believe what they believe about Jesus.

Plus, I believe this is following the "Golden Rule." If I was making a flawed argument in favor of the Trinity, I would appreciate very much if a Unitarian or Jehovah's Witness actually did some research and argued against the best possible presentation of the Trinity doctrine instead of my flawed, weak argument. So I am doing for them what I would want done to me.

Enough with all of these explanations; so below is, in my opinion, the best possible "Case for Unitarianism," and following that, I will attempt to show why Unitarianism is wrong:

* The Bible teaches that there is only One True God, only One Person who is Almighty God, and this One Person is The Father. His Name is Jehovah (Yahweh). (See John 17:3; John 5:37, 5:44; John 8:54; Isaiah 63:15-16; Malachi 1:6; 1st Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 4:6)

* But, even though there is only One Almighty God, there are others who can be called "gods" or even "mighty gods" in a lesser sense. These include representatives and spokesmen for the Almighty, such as holy angels, Moses, Israelite Judges, and Davidic Kings. These are called "gods" because they speak for the One True God in His Name as His representatives. (See Exodus 4:15-16; 7:1; Psalm 82; John 10:35-36; Psalm 45:6; Psalm 8:5; Psalm 86:8) There are also false gods, such as mythical gods, idols, Pagan human kings, rulers, Satan, and the demons. These false gods are called "gods" because people worship them and because they exercise power over others. (See 2nd Corinthians 4:4; Exodus 12:12; Deuteronomy 4:28; 32:17; Ezekiel 28:2; Isaiah 14:14)

* The foremost "Mighty God," underneath the Almighty God, is the Logos [Word, Wisdom]. The Logos was the very first and greatest creation of Almighty God. He is God's Firstborn Son, "produced" by God as "the beginning of the creation of God." (See Proverbs 8:22; Revelation 3:14; Colossians 1:15) The Logos only exists because God gives life to Him (John 6:57).

* The Logos is called "God" or "Mighty God" because He is the Chief Spokesman or Representative of the Almighty, and speaks in His Name with His authority and power. (John 5:19-20; 5:30; 8:28; 12:49)

* God created the Logos with the same Nature (or "Essence") that God has, and the Logos is the "exact image of God's Being," but the Logos is still a lesser and inferior being compared to the Almighty. (Hebrews 1:2-3) That is why Jehovah is called "The Father" and the Logos is called "The Son."

* The Logos is not All-Knowing or All-Powerful on His own, He only has the power and knowledge that the Almighty gives to Him. The Father is greater than The Son. (See John 14:28)

* God created all other things through the Logos. God was the Planner, Designer, Architect, and Creator, while the Logos was merely the Agent or Instrument through which all things were created. (John 1:3; Colossians 1:15-18; Hebrews 1:2)

* The Logos is in a separate class from the angels. He is higher and greater than they are. He has a different Nature than they do. (Hebrews Chapter 1)

* The Logos became a Human Being, known as Jesus Christ. (John 1:14)

* The Almighty God, The Father, is the only Person who should be worshiped in the fullest sense of religious devotion. (Matthew 4:10; Deuteronomy 6:13-14; 10:20; Exodus 20:5; 34:14) If you worship any creature at all in this religious sense, no matter how great the creature is, it is idolatry. (Romans 1:25)

* However, it is acceptable in God's eyes to bow down in respect and honor to a superior or to honor and acknowledge God's representative or spokesman. (See Revelation 3:9) In harmony with this, God commands all people and angels to bow down to His Son, the Logos, Jesus Christ. (Hebrews 1:6; Philippians 2:9-11; Revelation Chapter 5) But this is not the same kind of religious worship given to the Almighty God. This is a lower, or lesser, level of worship or honor, therefore it is not idolatry.

______________________________________________________________

What is wrong with that Unitarian Argument above?

1:) The Bible says that there is only One True God by Nature, and all other so-called gods are NOT gods by nature. 1st Corinthians 8:6. John 1:1, Colossians 2:9, and Philippians 2:6 clearly show that Jesus is God by Nature.

2:) John 1:1-3; 1st John 1:1-2; Colossians 1:16-18, Hebrews 1:3, and John 8:58 clearly teach that Jesus has always existed, and was NOT created by God.

3:) Isaiah 44:24 says that Jehovah ALONE, BY HIMSELF created Heaven and Earth, whereas Hebrews 1:10 says that Jesus created Heaven and Earth with His own hands. Therefore Jesus is Jehovah the Creator.

4:) The New Testament teaches that there is only One God for Christians. The Apostle Thomas said that his God was Jesus! (In Greek, Thomas actually said to Jesus, "The God of me!")

5:) In Revelation, the angel who was representing God and speaking for Him in His Name REFUSED to be worshiped, whereas Jesus ALWAYS ACCEPTED worship. The only explanation for this is that Jesus is God by Nature, not a creature.

6:) In Revelation, it says Jesus is the One who searches the hearts and minds, which, according to the Old Testament, is something only Jehovah can do.

7:) John 5:23 and Revelation Chapter 5 shows that Jesus must be honored equally with His Father.

8:) In John 1:1, it says Jesus was "God" BEFORE any creature was ever created. If He was only "a god" in the sense of being a "Spokesman" for God, then why would He have been called "God" BEFORE anyone existed that He could speak to for God?

9:) Finally, if, as Colossians 2:9, John 1:1, and Philippians 2:6 say, Jesus shares the exact same Nature that God has, then how could He be a creature? God's Nature is eternal, all-powerful, and all-knowing, then how could Jesus not be eternal, all-powerful, and all-knowing?

What are your thoughts on this?

I would love to hear from any current Jehovah's Witnesses who want to have a serious debate, and from any other Unitarians, or any others who do not believe Jesus is God.

I'd also like to see any comments from my fellow Trinitarian brethren!

Thank you!

Top Questions for Jehovah's Witnesses

1:) Where does Jesus command or condone the shunning of close family members who commit sin, until the elders approve of their reinstatement?

2:) Why are blood fractions allowed, but whole blood is not?

3:) Can Christians be saved without preaching to others or attending meetings? If not, aren't you teaching an earning of salvation by works? (Ephesians 2:8-9)

4:) Where does the Bible say that those who believe in the Trinity, or believe in an immortal soul, or who belong to different denominations than yours, will be destroyed at Armageddon?

5:) Why do you interpret the number 144,000 as literal in Revelation, whereas most other things in Revelation are interpreted symbolically?

6:) What should a Christian do if, in their personal study of the Bible, they determine that the Governing Body appears to be in error on a certain teaching? (Acts 17:11)

7:) Where does the Bible forbid Christians from celebrating birthdays or holidays, even if they have Pagan origins? (Romans 14:5-6)

8:) Where does the Bible say Christians must not take part in any politics?

9:) If a child accuses someone of abuse, should the parents or elders call the police?

10:) Should Christians pray to Jesus Christ? (John 14:14, Acts 7:59)

Top Questions for Catholics

1:) Where does the Bible say there would be a long line or succession of people who held the same position as the Apostle Peter?

2:) Where does the Bible say church leaders should not be married?

3:) Where does the Bible say Mary is a Mediator or Redeemer?

4:) Where does the Bible say Peter (or any successors) would be infallible or inerrant when teaching doctrine?

5:) Why are priests called "Father," since Jesus commanded that no religious person on earth should be referred to as "Father"? (Matthew 23:9)

6:) Why did Peter have a mother-in-law if he was unmarried? (Luke 4:38)

7:) Where does the Bible say Mary was sinless or that she remained a virgin forever?

8:) Where does the Bible say babies should be baptized?

9:) Where does the Bible give priests the authority to forgive sins?

10:) What happens if a Catholic reads the Bible and he or she believes the Bible is teaching something different from what the Pope is teaching? (Acts 17:11)

Top Questions for Protestants

1:) Why do you accept part of the Bible Canon put together by the Catholic Church, yet reject other parts?

2:) What is the difference between asking a saint on earth to pray for you, and asking a saint in heaven to pray for you?

3:) What is the difference between having icons of saints, and having paintings, pictures, or movies of saints or Biblical people?

4:) Why did Paul say that love was more important than faith (1 Corinthians 13:2, 13) and why did he say that the faith that saves you is a faith that expresses itself through love? (Galatians 5:6)

5:) There is nothing wrong with honoring Mary, right, as long as we don't put her into the position of Mediator or Redeemer?

6:) Why do you accept the Catholic creeds up until about 400 AD and then reject the rest until the time of Martin Luther?

7:) What are the "traditions" of the Apostles that Paul commanded Christians to keep? (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

8:) What is the difference between your church having creeds of mandatory or essential doctrine, and the Pope doing the same for his church?

9:) What is James teaching at James 5:16 about confession?

10:) If your church excommunicates people for being "heretics" if they reject the "orthodox" teaching of your creeds, then why is it wrong for the Pope to set up "orthodox" creeds for his church?

Questions for Trinitarians

Below is my list of Questions about the Trinity Doctrine, which I could not find good answers to, as I was abandoning that doctrine.

Are you a Trinitarian? Do you have good answers to any of these questions? Please let me know: post them in a comment below or tweet me at @AnnotatedBible.

1:) Where does the Bible say more than one person can still exist as one being, one essence, or one substance? (John 8:17-18)

2:) Where does the Bible say that Jesus had both a God-nature and a human-nature at the exact same time while on earth?

3:) How can Jesus be co-equal with God the Father at the exact same time that the Father is greater than Jesus, and is the Head of Jesus? (John 14:28, 1 Corinthians 11:3, Philippians 2:6-8)

4:) Where does the Bible say Jesus and the Father are one and the same God, instead of being two different Gods? (John 10:34-35, John 1:18, John 8:17-18)

5:) Why did Jesus deny that He was God at Mark 10:18?

6:) What was Jesus teaching at John 10:34-35?

7:) Where does the Bible say Jesus had an equal position with God the Father BEFORE coming to earth?

8:) At what point in time did God "make" Jesus become "Lord"? (Acts 2:36) How could there ever be a time when Yahweh was not "Lord," if indeed Jesus was Yahweh?

9:) If Jesus is Yahweh, why would He ever give up His Kingdom and hand it over to Yahweh? (1 Corinthians 15:24-28)

10:) If Jesus is Yahweh and co-equal to the Father, how could there be a time when the Father had to grant authority to Jesus? (John 5:21-27)

11:) If Jesus was Yahweh, why and how would He ever have needed to wait to inherit His own Divine Name? At what point did He NOT have possession of His own Name? (See Hebrews 1:4)

12:) If Jesus was Yahweh, how can Yahweh ever become lower than angels (See Hebrews 2:9), and how could He be co-equal to the Father at the same time He was lower than the angels?

13:) Why do modern Bible translations (except for the NASB and NWT) remove the word "begotten" from John 1:18, John 3:16, and other verses, especially since the Early Church Fathers (starting about 130 AD) quoted those verses as referring to Jesus as "the only-begotten"?

14:) Why do the 2011 NIV, NRSV, and NLT versions change Philippians 2:6 to say the exact opposite of what the literal Greek means? (Compare the literal NASB & ESV)

15:) Why do the NIV and NLT change the phrase "firstborn of all creation" (or "supreme one of all creation"), replacing the word "OF" with the word "OVER"?

16:) Why does Proverbs 8:20-24 say that  Jesus ("Wisdom") was created, produced, and given birth to, if Jesus is eternal?

17:) Why do Trinitarians strongly deny that Jesus is Michael the Chief Angel, but at the same time, most Trinitarians claim Jesus is the Chief of the Angels in Joshua 5?

Rejecting the Trinity and Embracing Doubleism

Short Introduction

In my previous blog post, I gave a little background information on my personal faith-journey regarding the Trinity Doctrine and the belief that Jesus is Yahweh, and how I came to reject that doctrine after 12 years of strongly defending it.

In this post, I will be giving a summary of my new, much more truthful and accurate Bible-based views on Jesus Christ and God the Father, which I have named "Doubleism" or "Double Theology," in reference to my belief in two Gods, the Invisible & Unbegotten Father and the Visible Begotten Son.

Before I delve into my beliefs on this, let me say that I still think the Trinity Doctrine and the belief that Jesus is Yahweh, are beautiful and logical man-made attempts to harmonize and make sense of seemingly contradictory Bible passages while giving honor and glory to God and His Son. I have nothing but love and respect for my Trinitarian brothers and sisters, and they are just as saved as I am. These doctrines are not a salvation issue. All Christians should read Romans chapter 14 before condemning or judging any Christian who doesn't agree with your interpretation of the Bible.

The Doctrine of "Doubleism" versus Trinitarianism

The Trinitarian Argument:

1. The Bible says there is only one true divine God by nature, and Yahweh is the one and only true God.
2. The Bible declares that both the Father and the Son are "God."
3. Therefore, either Jesus is Yahweh the one true God (along with the Father) or Jesus is a false god.

Trinitarians use Isaiah chapters 40-46 to support their doctrine, as well as John 10:30, 8:58, 1:1, 20:28, Hebrews 1:6-10, and many other passages.

Below I will be briefly examining many of these arguments, and showing how weak and shaky they truly are. (I myself used to be convinced of how "strong" these arguments are, but now I see that I was wrong)

Trinitarian Argument #1:
"At John 10:30, Jesus declared 'I and the Father are one,' then the Pharisees tried to stone Him to death for claiming to be God. This proves that Jesus and His Father are 'one' God."

My Refutation to Argument #1:
At John 17:22-23, Jesus explains what He means when He says that He and His Father are "one." He says it means they are in "complete unity" or "agreement." It has nothing to do with their divine nature, essence, or being. That was not being discussed anywhere in the context. In John 10:30-32, the Pharisees were mistaken about what Jesus was claiming, and were jumping at any reason to try to murder Him.

Another thing to keep in mind, at John 1:18, Jesus is shown to be one God, and the Father is shown to be another God. Jesus Himself said that One (The Father) plus One (The Son) equals TWO (John 8:17-18).

Trinitarian Argument #2:
"The Jewish Shema, the greatest command according to Jesus, declares that there is only one God, Yahweh, and having any more gods in addition would be blasphemy. Therefore Jesus must be the same God as Yahweh, or else Jesus is a false god."

My Refutation to Argument #2:
At John 10:34-35, Jesus Himself declares that Jewish judges who represented Yahweh were indeed called "gods" by Yahweh Himself in the Bible (Psalm 82). Jesus is using this to prove that there can be multiple lower gods who serve and represent Yahweh, without committing blasphemy or violating the Shema. At John 10:36 Jesus puts Himself in this category of "gods," but in a much higher position than those judges were.

In addition, Psalm 8:5 (in the Hebrew text) says that the holy angels are "gods" and Moses was a "god" also (Exodus 7:1). Surely Trinitarians do not claim that Moses and the holy angels committed blasphemy by being referred to as gods?

(This refutation also works for Trinitarian arguments for John 20:28, John 1:18, Romans 9:5, 2 Peter 1:1, Hebrews 1:8, etc.)

Trinitarian Argument #3:
"Isaiah 44:24 says Yahweh alone, by Himself, created heaven and earth and that no one was with Him. John 1:1-3 says Jesus was with God and created all things. Therefore, either Jesus is Yahweh, or Yahweh lied in Isaiah!"

My Refutation to Argument #3:
I admit that, to me, this used to be the strongest and best argument for the Trinity and the belief that Jesus is Yahweh. But upon further study, it is not actually a strong case.

The context of Isaiah 44 shows that Yahweh is comparing Himself to the lifeless idols, the false god statues people were worshiping. Angels and heavenly beings were not being discussed anywhere in this context. The words "alone, by Myself," and "No one was with Me," do not exclude angelic sons of God from being with Yahweh when He created earth, since Job 38:7 says the angelic sons of God applauded with joy when Yahweh created earth!

In addition, if we interpret the same way, and apply the same logic, to verses about Moses, as the Trinitarians do, we end up with the doctrine that Moses is Yahweh! Let me show you:

• Deuteronomy 32:12 declares that "Yahweh alone" led Israel out of Egypt.
• Exodus 15:22 declares that it was Moses who led Israel out of Egypt.
• Exodus 7:1 calls Moses "god."
• Therefore, Moses must be the God who led Israel out of Egypt, Yahweh Himself!

See what happens when we apply the exact same Trinitarian logic to other parts of Scripture? We end up with Moses being Yahweh God Almighty, and I doubt any Trinitarian is willing to accept that claim.

Trinitarian Argument #4:
"John 1:1 says the Logos/Word was with God and the Logos/Word was God, therefore, the Logos (pre-human Jesus) must be the same God with His Father."

My Refutation to Argument #4:
If you research what the Greek experts are saying about John 1:1, you will find that many are agreeing that this verse actually says "The Logos had the nature of God," or "The Logos had divine nature." It is not saying that the Logos is the same God as the Father is. It is saying that the Logos is the same TYPE of being as God the Father is.

Trinitarian Argument #5:
"Colossians 2:9 declares that all of the fullness of the divine nature dwells in Jesus bodily, therefore, that is absolute proof that Jesus is Yahweh God Almighty, since only Yahweh has this divine nature."

My Refutation to Argument #5:
Please see my refutation to argument #4 directly above, and also, examine 2 Peter 1:4, which says that Christians will also have the "divine nature." If Christians also have divine nature, then the possession of divine nature can no longer be used as proof that someone is Yahweh, unless you are going to claim that all Christians are also Yahweh.

Colossians 2:9 does indeed say that only Jesus has "all the fullness of the divine nature bodily," but that still doesn't equate to being proof that He is Yahweh, after looking at 2 Peter 1:4, unless you want to say that all Christians are "little Yahwehs" or "partly Yahweh."

Trinitarian Argument #6:
"Isaiah 42:8 says that Yahweh will never share His glory with another, but God the Father shares His glory with Jesus, therefore, Jesus and God the Father must be Yahweh, or else Yahweh lied in Isaiah 42:8."

My Refutation to Argument #6:
On the surface, this appears to be a strong argument. However, when you look deeper, you discover otherwise. First of all, the context of Isaiah 42 is Yahweh comparing Himself to lifeless idols, statues of false gods which could not hear, see, think, or act. Yahweh is declaring that He would never share His glory with these stupid little statues. Yahweh was NOT comparing Himself here to holy angels or godly humans.

But the biggest and best refutation of this argument is found in the words of Jesus Christ Himself:

"Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son...glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was....The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one." -- John 17:1, 5, 22 (NASB)

Jesus gave His disciples the very same glory that God the Father had given Him! So if the Trinitarians' argument is correct that possessing this glory makes a person Yahweh, then that means all of Christ's disciples are Yahweh also.

Trinitarian Argument #7:

"At Isaiah 43:11 Yahweh declares that He alone is the only Savior, and besides Him there exist no saviors. The Bible repeatedly says that Jesus is our Savior, therefore, this means Jesus is Yahweh, or else Yahweh lied in Isaiah 43:11."

My Refutation to Argument #7:

This argument is very easily refuted by pointing out that (a) the immediate context and surrounding chapters of Isaiah have God comparing Himself to lifeless little statues that people are forming and calling "savior" and "god" (Isaiah 43:10), and (b) the Bible refers to people sent by Yahweh as "saviors" of His people. (Judges 3:9, 3:15; Nehemiah 9:27)

Conclusion: If being called a "savior" in the Bible means you are Yahweh, then the Judges of Israel and people sent by God were also Yahweh.

Trinitarian Argument #8:
"At John 8:24, Jesus refers to Himself by the Divine Name 'I AM,' and then says that anyone refusing to accept Him as the I AM will die without having their sins forgiven. Therefore, Jesus is the Great I AM, Yahweh."

My Refutation of Argument #8:
In the Greek, John 9:9 is worded the same way as John 8:24, yet John 9:9 was spoken by a regular human being. So, if saying "I AM" (ego eimi in Greek) means that a person is Yahweh, then the person in John 9:9 is also Yahweh.

Given the immediate context of John 8:22-23, Jesus is simply saying "Unless you believe that I am the One who came down from above from God the Father, then you will die without your sins being forgiven." Even the Trinitarian NIV and NLT translations have interpreted and translated this verse as "Unless you believe that I am the One that I claim to be..."

Even if Jesus did refer to Himself by the Divine Name, remember that John 17:11-12 says God the Father gave His Name to Jesus, and Hebrews 1:4 says that Jesus permanently inherited that Divine Name after His death and resurrection (Compare Philippians 2:9-11).

Trinitarian Argument #9:
"Jesus claimed to be equal to God at John 5:19-23 and John 10:30."

My Refutation to Argument #9:
Jesus did say that He now deserves equal worship and honor with God, however, Jesus (while on earth) denied being in an equal position to God the Father. (Mark 10:18; John 14:28; Philippians 2:6-8) Jesus cannot be equal and non-equal to God at the same time. That is a logical absurdity.

Explaining Doubleism: my views on God the Father and Jesus Christ His Son

Now we come to the part you've been waiting for, where I explain my own nuanced views on the topic. Well, here we go:

1. The Logos / Son (Pre-Human Jesus) existed in the beginning with Yahweh the Father, and created all things together with Yahweh (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:15-18; Hebrews 1:3; John 17:5)
2. The Pre-Human Jesus was the Only-Begotten Son of God, which made Him the Only-Begotten God. Either Jesus was "brought forth" into existence at a certain time in the past, OR He has been eternally begotten, always being produced or brought forth from inside of Yahweh's nature. (John 1:18; Hebrews 1:3; Proverbs 8:22-24; John 8:58)
3. Colossians 1:15 does appear to place Jesus within the category of "creation," saying that He is the "greatest of all creation" or the "Firstborn of all creation." If that is the case, it does indeed appear that Jesus was created at some point by Yahweh, OR this verse could be referring to the human body of Jesus being a creation of Yahweh. (Hebrews 10:5) In addition, Revelation 3:14 may be saying that Jesus was the first thing created by Yahweh.
4. Jesus was a 2nd God. Yahweh is the unseen, unbegotten God, whereas Jesus is the visible, begotten God. (John 1:18; Colossians 1:15; Philippians 2:6-8)
5. Jesus was "a god" in the same sense that angels are "gods" (Psalm 8:5), Moses was "god" (Exodus 7:1), and the Hebrew judges were "gods" (Psalm 82:1-6). This type of "god" is a "mighty one" who represents Yahweh and carries out His decrees. (John 10:34-35)
6. Jesus was exactly like Yahweh and perfectly represented Him (Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:15; Philippians 2:6)
7. I believe Jesus was the "Angel of the Lord" in the Old Testament, whom Yahweh granted the authority to use His Name and to speak as if He were Yahweh. (Exodus 23:21; 1 Corinthians 10:3-4; Jude 1:5; Galatians 4:14; Hebrews 1:4)
8. Right from the beginning, Yahweh appointed Jesus to be the "Heir" who would inherit all things, and all things were created for Jesus. (Hebrews 1:2-3; Colossians 1:15-18)
9. Jesus was appointed by God to be "Lord" and "High Priest" at a heavenly ceremony in Psalm 110. Prior to that, Jesus did not hold the position of "Lord." (Acts 2:34-36)
10. Jesus did NOT have an equal position with God until after He came to earth, suffered, died, and was raised up. (Philippians 2:6-11; John 14:28; Hebrews 1:4)
11. When Jesus came to earth, Yahweh gave His Son the Divine Name of "Yahweh" (John 17:11-12) and it became His permanent inheritance after His resurrection. (Hebrews 1:4; Philippians 2:9-11; Ephesians 1:20-22)
12. Ever since Jesus came to earth as "The Son of Man" (or "New Adam"), He deserves equal worship, honor, and praise together with God the Father (John 5:21-27; Revelation Chapter 5; Philippians 2:9-11)
13. While on earth, and ever since then, God granted Jesus the authority to listen to, and answer, prayer (John 14:13-14; Acts 7:59-60), the authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:10), the authority to judge people (John 5:21-23) and to grant eternal life to whomever He pleases (John 5:26-27).
14. Yahweh gave Jesus Almighty power and authority after His resurrection. (Matthew 28:18; Revelation 22:12-16)
15. One day, Jesus will hand the Kingdom back over to Yahweh, His Father, so that Yahweh will receive all the praise as the ultimate God. (1 Corinthians 15:24-28)
16. You can never give "too much" worship to Jesus, however, there is the danger of EXCLUDING God the Father in our worship and focusing only on Jesus. (Philippians 2:9-11; 1 Corinthians 15:24-28; John 4:23-24)
17. There is no where in the Bible that says believing Jesus is Yahweh/God, or accepting the Trinity Doctrine is required for salvation.

My views on the Holy Spirit will be a separate blog post. For now, I will simply say that at certain times, "Holy Spirit" refers to the Father, certain times to the Son, certain times to their power or energy, and then certain times to a mysterious third person.

I welcome any and all comments, suggestions, criticism, debate, and refutation to my beliefs and statements. My e-mail address is DanielPHarder@gmail.com and my Twitter account is @AnnotatedBible

Thank you and God bless you!

My Evolution on the Trinity Doctrine

From 2002 to 2010, I strongly believed, defended, and argued in favor of the Trinity Doctrine (and the belief that Jesus was Yahweh) online. I was convinced it was the absolute truth. It was logically consistent (internally), seemed to be the best explanation for several mysteries of the Bible, and many parts of the Bible seemed to contradict each other unless the Trinity was true.

I was even convinced (based upon a faulty interpretation of John 8:24) that people would be condemned by God for rejecting the belief that Jesus was Yahweh.

I was able to build elaborate, very sound, logical arguments which on the surface appeared airtight. But I had to "customize" the traditional Trinity Doctrine to fit what I was reading in the Scriptures. Right from the beginning, I had to throw out the traditional Trinitarian doctrine that says Jesus was always "co-equal" with God the Father. Many Scriptures prove that to be false. (1 Corinthians 11:3, Philippians 2:6-8, John 14:28, Revelation 3:12, 1 Corinthians 15:24-28)

The version of the Trinity Doctrine I subscribed to, is known as "Functional Subordinationism." It simply means that The Son has always been in willing subjection to The Father.

However, as I read the Scriptures, even this customized version of the Trinity Doctrine didn't seem to fit all the Bible verses. But I kept ignoring and avoiding the passages which I couldn't explain (such as Mark 10:18, John 10:34-35, 2 Peter 1:4, Acts 2:36).

In 2011 and 2012 I began having some doubts on the Trinity Doctrine, but again, based on my faulty interpretation of John 8:24 (and the fear of being labelled a "heretic" or "apostate" by my Christian friends online), I suppressed and denied these doubts.

It wasn't until February of this year that I began to re-read the Gospel of John (and those other passages I had been ignoring) in the NASB (New American Standard Bible), in order to re-examine my views on the Trinity and on the Deity of Christ. I chose the NASB because it is recognized by many as the most literally accurate Bible translation in existence (outside of an interlinear). And after comparing its word choices and phrasing to Greek dictionaries and lexicons, it does indeed appear to be the least doctrinally biased mainstream translation on the market.

I had always believed that the Gospel of John was the biggest evidence in favor of Jesus being Yahweh, and the Trinity Doctrine. I now know the truth is the exact opposite.

After studying the Trinity verses in the NASB for two months, I came to the conclusion that I could no longer believe the Trinity Doctrine or that Jesus is Yahweh, and still be honest to myself and others.

I now have a much clearer, much more nuanced view of God and Jesus, which I will explain in my next blog post.