From Trinitarianism to [Biblical] Unitarianism: My testimony

I made a short video testimony back in March 2014 regarding my change of mind and a few of the objections that caused me great stir in my own beliefs as a trinitarian.  But I said in that video that I wanted to eventually make another video with a more full testimony of my repentance from the false idol of trinitarianism to the one true and living God YHWH, the Father of our lord Jesus Messiah(Jer 10:10, Matt 16:16, 1 Thess 1:9-10).  This will be the beginning of this testimony in text that will be recorded in a video/audio soon with as much as I can remember regarding all the events that caused me to change my mind.  And be assured, this was no easy change of mind in all the time I took to study out this issue(and continue to study)….  it caused me great grief over time as I began to learn more and more regarding all the deception of trinitarian songs, translations, bias, and outright lies spread to uphold the trinitarian idol.  It caused me great grief in the deception of my close friends and fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who were likely not even studying the doctrine in the manner of depth which I was giving to it.  I fought it, I wanted it to be true, I tried to make it work… and in the end it did not work.  Here is the story of the truth of my testimony from as much detail as I can recall. I started to write this over a year ago and put it off.  It has been a long time since I originally planned to make a testimony, so it is quite fuzzy now.  Some dialogue recollections are likely not perfect, but the general context is there.

I do not recall the exact time this occurred(sometime in the summer/fall 2012), but my first sort of “ah-ha” moment that caused me to give a second thought was a small debate I got into with a fellow brother regarding Isaiah 14 being about satan or a wicked king based on the context.  But one verse in particular was regarding the fact that this “being” who fell was called a “man.”(Isaiah 14:16)  Going into the full discussion is irrelevant, but my brother brought the argument of the trinity and the meaning of “person” into the discussion for some reason to attempt to back up his view that it was regarding a past fall of satan.  As I began to think about his claims more and more…  I eventually admitted openly both to myself(and in my objection to him) that the trinity and ideal of “person” was not founded on the Bible, but a man made description to understand a concept that (I thought at that time) was taught in the Bible.  I realized that God is not really a “person,” and that word didn’t really seem to fit because that would make each of the “persons” of the trinity into clearly individuals who are each separately God in their own right, and 3 Gods.  That was my first stir moment, but it didn’t really cause me tons of unrest.  It was just categorized and put away in my thoughts not to really arise again until many months later.

Then around the time of December 2012 – January 2013 I had been reading the Bible and some verses caught my eye that had not before despite my usage of them in speaking with other people regarding the Gospel.  The main verse I remember is John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” (NKJV).  It’s fairly straight-forward in the verse. Jesus is speaking and praying to the Father(v.1) and claims in regards to eternal life one must know the only true God and himself.  Obviously Jesus is not aligning himself with being the only true God in this text. He’s naming only one person (in trinitarian terms) as that God, his Father.  So that was another moment that caught my attention, yet it was still not enough to make me change my mind or cause me any larger concern.  It was also filed away as “interesting, but I’ll look into it another time.”

As February/March of 2013 rolled around, our elders of Refining Fire Fellowship said they were going to begin doing a “foundations” series with roughly 10 major topics.  They wanted to give newer believers a good start with contextual attempts to explain and found themselves in major topics regarding the Scriptures. “Awesome!” I thought at the time. They were also going to start with God and go in deeper on the trinity.  I was ready and I wanted to see their defense of it from Scripture because I hadn’t studied it in great depth.  I just knew some basics and how to defend it against Jehovah’s Witnesses for the most part.  I knew the verses that “proved” Jesus was God, but I wanted more.  Kevin Lovell was going to be the main teacher of this first major topic.  In my personal opinion, I loved Kevin a lot. I knew he knew the Bible pretty well–but I wasn’t truly wanting him to teach it. I would have rather had Kerrigan Skelly teach it.  Kevin is not the same type of teacher as Kerrigan, so I wasn’t sure if I’d get the same amount of “meat” from the Bible as Kerrigan might draw out in teaching the trinity.  You can actually view that trinity series teaching(in 3 parts) on skellys3 (Kerrigan) youtube channel still.  Here is a link to the playlist. Refining Fire Foundations playlist

So we get into it, finally!  And while I’m not going to go through all the teachings of Kevin right now to pull out every text I could show he mis-used now… I will go through what texts and teachings caught my attention back then.  We soon started with one of the main texts, Deuteronomy 6:4, the Sh’ma!  So Kevin goes over the idea that Hebrew word “echad” is not the Hebrew word “yachid.”  That God specifically used this special word “echad,” and it can refer to a “compound unity.”  He then goes to a few specific verses like Genesis 1:5 referring to an evening and a morning in ONE day. Guess what, that word is “echad.” There are two parts, evening and morning … in one day! Amazing, a compound unity he declares.  Then onto Numbers 13:23 wherein “echad” refers to “one bunch of grapes.” Again, another compound unity.  I believe there was one more example in the video–but I cannot remember right now.  So there we have it, the Sh’ma itself holds the truth of the trinity within it… those foolish blind Hebrews couldn’t even read their own language.  God is “echad,” a compound unity.  I specifically remember Kevin being a bit foolish in his own blind pride by claiming the Hebrews were blind to their own language in not seeing the trinity right there.  I know Kevin did NOT know Hebrew well… I suspect (though I do not know for sure) he got this from Michael Brown.  Now I grieve because this is not only ignorance of Hebrew, but basic linguistics on a grade level understanding.

At the end of one of the teachings from Kevin on the trinity I also remember some slight juggling of obvious texts in Hebrews 1.  It had to do with the fact that Jesus became the son of God in a timely manner “Today, I have begotten you” and “I will be a Father to him and He shall be my son.”  Both of these are in verse 5 and quite clearly dealing with a time sense, not an eternal sonship of some sort.  I don’t remember the answers, but this was also a bit questionable when I was listening to the men in the fellowship go back and forth on this subject in Hebrews 1.

What mainly caused me to question was the claim regarding “echad” by our elder whom I knew did not know Hebrew well.  I was also a bit questioning of it because I was learning Greek at that time.  Language was becoming very prioritized in my understanding lately, and something seemed off by Kevin’s claim about “echad.”  I also recognized later that our elders had avoided Mark 12:29-34 which is an entire exposition of the Sh’ma in Deuteronomy 6:4 by Jesus himself [Mark 12:29-37 is the greater context I discovered later, wherein Jesus explains he is the “my lord” next to the one YHWH–my video on the subject is here]. This was concerning since the I learned from the elders that the Sh’ma is very important to Jews(really, Israelites–but that’s another matter).  So, why don’t we recite it? It’s one of the GREATEST commandments according to Jesus.  But trinitarians really do avoid it like the plague.  Only when it comes to defending the trinity does it come up.  It’s the only reason it came up for me in the past!

So later on that very night I looked into the Lexicons online for the word “echad.”  I ran through Gesenius’ Lexicon and found nothing regarding a definition of “plural unity” or “compound unity” within the term itself.  What I found, was that the Hebrew word “echad” is exactly like the English word “one.”  When you ask a Hebrew speaker to count, they will start with “echad.” It means ONE, one means ONE… not more than one!  That would be a breaking of the law of contradiction to say ONE itself is more than one!  So that caused me a bit of unrest. So I began “Googling” around the discussion regarding the Sh’ma and “echad.”  I found tons of debates, but mainly found a website and youtube page by a user called “TheTrinityDelusion.”  He and many others I read said the “echad” claim by trinitarians was a complete falsehood and a ridiculous fallacy of linguistics. Incidentally, since then I’ve found a few trinitarians who were candid enough to admit that this argument is a sham and they cannot believe it even exists in the trinitarian academic world.  It is truly as I said, a fallacy of grammar.  As per the example above “one day” means “one day”–not more than one day.  “One” is an adjective describing how many “days”–not what is within that “day.” “Evening and morning” are descriptions of what is within the word “day”–and has nothing to do with the word “one”(echad in this case).  There is something called “semantic domain” in language. In this case it refers to the semantic domain of the words “one” and “day.”  When you think of the word “day” you can think of it’s semantic domain in multiple manners.  “Day” can bring all sorts of things to mind: it has 24 hours, morning, evening, afternoon… are just a few examples.  “One” however, means only “one.”  To say it’s more than one, is to deny the word’s definition itself.  Even if “one” is used to describe a word with a semantic domain that includes multiples—such as “one bunch of grapes.”  There’s only ONE bunch, one is describing how many bunches there are… there’s not 2, 3, 4 etc … bunches.  “Bunch [of grapes]” is the word with the semantic domain that includes multiples because that’s what the word brings to mind itself.  I hope this is clear enough to explain and understand–but it is clearly a fallacy to claim “echad” is plural unity and can refer to the trinity within the Sh’ma, and thus it is a deception.

Then I looked more at the Sh’ma in the context of Mark 12:28-34 since it was also a clear place wherein it was spoken about.  I realized Jesus was speaking with a fellow Israelite and he came to an agreement with this man in regards to the one God.  I also had the quite obvious self-revelation that Jews, that Israelites… are not trinitarians by any means.  So what gives, wouldn’t this be the perfect place for Jesus to begin explaining this entire 3-in-1 God thing?  But instead he didn’t, he posited this one God as his God also.  The one God of the Sh’ma, the one YHWH of the Sh’ma… is Jesus’ God too!  Jesus has a God, what revelation!  Such an obvious revelation! Jesus has a God, and his God is one… his Father and no one else. Is that because such clear verses exist wherein the Jews refer to the Father as the only God(Malach 2:10)? So that led me to search a bit more about this fact that Jesus has a God.  I realized it was all over Scripture, and then I stumbled upon a number of “Trinity challenge” questions by the youtube user I mentioned above. So I figured, I’ll take some of these questionnaires.  I took one on 1 Corinthians 8:6… and found myself a bit stumbled as a trinitarian. Then I took another one, the one on whether or not Jesus is a trinitarian. The original video appears to be gone, but with his permission I still have it available on my own youtube site now [link to that video here].  I took that challenge, and realized in answering these questions I necessarily condemned Jesus as an idolator and God the Father as that idol!  That was it!  I answered those questions and it was like someone struck me with a bat to my chest.

Now I had an issue. I had to make sure what I was reading wasn’t just nonsense.  I wanted to study these topics of “echad” and Mark 12…and study it well before I ever brought it before my elders.  I didn’t want to waste their time with any frivolous questions.  I mean, it was the trinity!  Who questions this?  So I took the next 4 months and studied this until I had gathered enough research to present a serious objection to their teaching.  I wanted to questionably object to the mis-use of “echad” and also ask why we avoided Mark 12 when it was very pertinent to understanding who is God.  I gathered a couple pages worth of information and figured I was ready by August 2013.  So I asked the elders(who at that time were only Kerrigan Skelly and Kevin Lovell) to sit down with me and speak about my questions.  They were willing.

So one afternoon after a gathering in our church, they sat down with me for about 3 hours as I asked them further questions regarding their studies on the trinity.  Both admitted they had not given it truly a full study–but more of a continuous cursory assumption while reading the Bible.  They just saw the trinity as they read along through all the years of other studies.  I got to ask my couple main objections regarding the “echad” and Mark 12, and they had no answers at that time.  They asked what I was thinking about, and I told them when I searched my views it was appearing to be something like “biblical unitarianism” even though I still had many disagreements with this view at that time.  Though with the knowledge I have now, I know my views were leaning more towards the Eastern Orthodox version of the trinity.  It is not the same as the West’s trinity today.  The major difference I may have had at that time is I was wondering if Jesus had truly completely given up “godhood” upon his incarnation.  That way he could be truly and fully man with no additions to his nature.  Either way, the elders then began to try to question me while not answering my objections.  And I admit I sounded fairly ignorant and admitted I had not studied a plethora of other texts often used to support the trinity. I had not fully studied this topic–it’s a huge topic.  This is not something you figure out in a couple months even!  After our minor debate and dialogue for 2-3 hours, they asked me to email them my objections in a more detailed format and they would get back to me.  So I took out another couple hours to type out the issues and emailed them, excited to hear more.  I’ll link that email here and copy it to another wordpress so it can be read separately.  Sadly, this email was never answered.

I didn’t hear any more from them about the subject until around September/October 2013 even though I continued studying the subject.  Tracy Bays was made an elder in between those months and was filled in on the objections I had.  Then the elders asked me to stay behind and speak with them further after another fellowship gathering about where I was at in this study.  Tracy had a few objections I admitted I did not have answers for(even though I do now, he never got to hear my answers)… but I was still in a limbo at this point.  I had placed myself outside the trinity at this point, but I wasn’t fully committed to any position yet[I was leaning more towards Arianism at this point]. I just wanted a more objective view from the outside of the trinity.  All this time in those past months I’d been on youtube videos regarding the trinity and asking questions and having dialogue with other trinitarians. I didn’t want to bother the elders with every question and objection I would find(we’d have been talking for hours every other week after church!). The majority of those online in different forums would outright get angry at me for even questioning it! I think I can count on one hand today the number of humble trinitarians who would have dialogue about this subject in a respectful manner after 2 years of changing my mind… and 3 years in study of it.  Anyways, this conversation between myself and the elders lasted another 2-3 hours with the elders wherein more questions and objections were asked… but mainly from them to me.  I had studied a number of texts in support of the trinity at that time, but was still nowhere near tackling them all.  I answered a few of their objections and finally got to ask some of my own objections.  Their answers were either very bad(regarding the hypostatic union question I remember) or they continued to ignore my initial objections regarding “echad” and Mark 12.  I still had not received an email response or a direct response from them on these two major issues.  In the end the debate got a bit more heated even though it was controlled.  The elders suggested I watch the debate between Anthony Buzzard and Michael Brown/James White… and they also gave me a copy of Michael Brown’s book Jewish Objections to Jesus: Theological Objections. They also asked that I avoid any other websites or books regarding the subject and to just read and watch these sources and study the Bible.  I internally found that a bit unreasonable to only look at one side of the argument without being able to test it, but I agreed.

I read the trinity relevant portions of Michael Brown’s book many times over and found them very wanting.  Sometimes he was even admitting the biblical unitarian position within his book.  He also differs from other trinitarians in his explanation. [I have a video showing Michael Brown’s clear semi-oneness claim in his book, linked here.]   I watched the debate (I’d already seen it once–and I admit Buzzard appeared to lose)… but I was sitting there yelling at the screen for all the things Anthony didn’t press White and Brown on.  Brown was equivocating and self-contradicting like crazy in one of his answers and Anthony didn’t say a thing to point it out.  I know it’s difficult when you’re in the thick of things… so I began to write down my every question and objection to White/Brown’s answers in the debate.  I got about half-way through the debate again and had page upon page.  I also wrote down my issues with Brown’s book.  I continued to study the Scriptures and look for every relevant text I could regarding the trinity and the who the one true and living God is…  I found tons of texts, tons of clear texts and cross-references.  I found many biases in translations favoring the trinity.  I found many seemingly clear texts that I thought supported the trinity actually DID NOT AT ALL support it when I looked more closely and cross-referenced words/phrases in the verses.  I started writing all this down.  I tried working the 3-in-1 God thing out multiple times during my hour lunches at work and time at home.  I could not figure out how to do it without equivocating or contradicting Scripture.  I found later that there were many candid trinitarian apologists who admitted this cannot be logically made to work.  It leads to tri-theism or a clear contradiction within itself, and especially to Scripture. There is not one place “God” can be shown in the entirety of Scripture to mean “triune God.” It must be read into the Bible.  “O theos”[God] in the NT alone refers to the Father only 1,300 times without debate.  There’s only roughly 1317 usages depending on the manuscripts used(meaning some more, some less).  That’s over 99% without debate.  That was pretty clear.

Then around late December 2013 I was at work on a night shift.  I was heavily burdened for many months studying all regarding this subject and facing the clearer Scriptures.  I was listening to Acts in my audio Bible—and hearing the first preaching of the apostles.  Over and over they were calling the God of Israel, the God of our fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob….our Father!  The one God is the Father and Jesus is now lord! Acts 2 and Psalm 110:1.  Paul gives his famous speech to the Greeks at the Areopagus in Acts 17 and makes it clear in no uncertain terms that-that one God who created everything, gives everything life, made the nations, doesn’t dwell in temple(Acts 7:48-50), is the reason YOU LIVE….that one God “Acts 17:31…will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”  That “He,” that “God” is the Father!  Not a tri-une god!  Jesus said “our” in the Sh’ma, Jesus is under the Torah… including that Sh’ma as one of the greatest commandments.  That God is his God. Jesus is not a trinitarian, he’s a unitarian.  I cried out in repentance at work… I cried out for forgiveness…. I cried out for strength, and the burden was gone.

So now we had an issue.  I had faced what was burdening me for so long, and now I had to face my elders.  I called and finally reached Kerrigan by phone on a Saturday late afternoon in January 2014 right after the new year.  I told him that I had repented and become a biblical unitarian.  I told him we would not be joining the fellowship again until I could speak with the elders in private to confront them.  We are to have 2 witnesses in an accusation, so I needed my wife also.  He was understandably upset and angry. He told me that I was not welcome back to the fellowship.  I asked him when we could speak and he said to give the elders a couple weeks to prepare for the talk and then we’d all speak.  In the middle of the conversation he tried to ask me questions(and I honestly don’t remember them now)…so I also pressed him on who the one and only true God is according to Jesus, regarding John 17:3.  He acted as if he did not know the verse and that I was putting him under pressure when he wasn’t ready or studied.  I find it hard to believe he didn’t know John 17:3!  He refused to answer.

I heard nothing for a few days from anyone until Kerrigan called to ask if Tina(my wife) was going to join the fellowship at all the next week and needed a ride.  But I told him no, she was with me and had changed her mind also.  Tina had been studying on her own and been dialoguing with me about the issues as I brought text by text to her from the Scriptures.

So I took Kerrigan’s response to my question about meeting with all the elders very seriously.  I took the next 3-4 weeks preparing and studying.  I studied and compiled verse after clear verse.  Fact after fact, logical argument in writing after another to expose the trinity explanations for what they were both in the minds of the elders and the mis-uses of Scripture.  I wrote about 20-30 pages worth of information.  I prepared everything I could find.  I probably would have gone longer–but with my wife at my side and almost 4 weeks passing… we agreed if I kept going I would never stop.  So I had to just cut it off and admit I had enough information to present and leave it at that.  Since then, I’ve only found more verses and cross-references so clearly in the Scriptures.  I admit I do not know everything and did not at that time, but I had to finally make a plan to meet with them.  So I sent an email to Kerrigan with a detailed pre-examination of the trinity and asking for my objections to be answered. I considered these pre-exam questions very important because I wanted answers to these questions.  I will link that email here that I sent.  And then I waited.  I waited 2-3 days… I waited a week.  No response, no call from them.  I waited a whole 2 weeks for my request to meet with the elders, and then I finally decided to email again and ask a very patient and calm question regarding why I had not been contacted at all back to set up a meeting. I’ll link that email here.  Kerrigan finally responded in email.  I will link that email here.  Essentially, he said they knew enough and there was nothing I could say to convince them.  So they “prayed” and decided not to meet with me and we were just cut off, false teachers etc…

So, where is that response in Matthew 18?  Do the elders now just get to claim they have enough of the answers that they don’t have to answer objections?  Are my wife and I not able to make legitimate accusations and be heard out?  Is that not what Matthew 18 is about? Confronting sin?  I was livid at that time to be forward when I read that email response.  I almost answered immediately then… but Tina held me back and told me to wait a day.  It was better… I’m glad I waited. I was still angry, but it was a more controlled email response.  I will link that email here.

I want it to be known that I never received a response from the elders to my initial main issues back from the fall of 2013.  I never received my Matthew 18 confrontation in full against myself or towards the elders from my standpoint, especially in front of the entire church per Jesus’ command.  I was never given the opportunity to go through with my counter-accusation in front of the church.  I had my wife and I as witnesses to charge them with false teaching in the email, yet no one was willing to hear us out.

So we pretty much had to accept that without anyone being willing to contact us since the elders cut off our contact.  We had no contact with the rest of the fellowship. We began to make plans to move away and sell our house.  I received a job transfer within my company to a much better paying position in another state nearer to family… so I took it. The only contact we had to have then was to trade items back with those whom we had borrowed them from in the fellowship.  The emails between us all did stay in context regarding trading also… so there’s no reason to really copy these over.  We finally set up a meeting to trade stuff off.  The 3 elders, Tracy Bays, Kerrigan Skelly and Kevin Lovell decided they were going to drive over to our house and trade off the items with us.

Our last meeting finally came one evening right before we were about to move.  They arrived and we traded back items.  I sincerely wish now I’d have just cut it off and went back inside our house now—because they did not have ears to hear what the Scripture and Jesus had to say.  But I remained outside with my wife and Kevin initiated conversation.  It started out fine, but Kevin mainly spoke about how my views were “overthrowing history” and going against the entire church for the last couple thousand years.  Completely irrelevant honestly–our church was already against the mainstream last couple thousand years in doctrine.  I mean, Roman Catholicism ruled… and very few people had full Bibles in hand like we do today… nor could most even READ!  There were [biblical] unitarians that came out of the reformation though. Namely an anabaptist leader named Adam Pastor who actually split from Menno Simons.  Then later John Biddle, who was very well known as a [biblical] unitarian in the times after the reformation.  This is also ignorant of the fact that the majority of the early church prior to Nicea was Arian-like in their views of God and Jesus.  You can see this if you more closely study the ante-nicene writers in context.  Anyways, point still is… history has nothing to do with what the Scriptures actually say and our church was already against it en masse.

Then Tracy Bays accused me of believing Jesus was still dead!  How foolish!  I wish I had recorded this conversation.  Of all things!… I was told in the email that the elders would not be wiling to hear me out since they wouldn’t be convinced… and I get accused of such a ridiculous thing that has absolutely nothing to do with [biblical] unitarianism!  Tracy had no clue what my position even was!  Yet they had nothing to learn from me? I objected to that claim that “Jesus was dead” clearly and he was quiet for the moment.  Kevin was still talking about objections… and then he brought up John 1. I went into speaking about the “memra”  of the Aramaic targums as I learned a bit more from Michael Brown(and studied more later)… and then I was accused of sounding gnostic! Again, these crazy foolish accusations!  And these men had nothing to learn from my position or the Bible?  I learned about the “Memra” from the VERY BOOK THEY GAVE ME in the first place from Michael Brown!  I only studied it more than that which Michael Brown presented and found it to be a dead end for trinitarianism.

The last major accusation I remember hearing from Tracy Bays was something along the lines of “Why don’t I go to the pope? since he’s a man, he can be your mediator.”  I immediately responded with 1 Timothy 2:5 ” ‘For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,’ and the pope is not the sinless lamb of God!”  He stood there and said nothing.  Nevermind the complete foolishness of the claim shows that Tracy is denying Jesus is a man implicitly!  I hear this all the time from trinitarians now in double-talk when trying to deal with the contradiction of the hypostatic union.

Kerrigan was quiet in the background the entire time walking around in my yard and on my driveway.  I presume he was praying.  The only thing he said was “it’s time to go” before they drove off and un-audibly he said that I was a sinner. I didn’t hear it, Tina had told me later.

And that’s pretty much it from that point…  we packed, we moved and we live in another state now.  I tried emailing a couple objections to some things I saw come out from Kerrigan–but he nor others did not respond. He made a video mis-using the Greek grammar in Titus 2 and I left a full contextual response comment… and he blocked me off the video. That was pretty much it.  I continued to study the trinity, mainly listening to James White’s explanations of it since he’s the main proponent.  I haven’t kept up with what I wished to regarding making videos and objections… and a lot of it has already been done truly.  I haven’t been studying the topic as thoroughly lately because other topics took my interest… but I’m still willing to dialogue about it with anyone who will.

Overall this study and experience with the elders taught me great humility.  I realized how foolish I had been in not listening to other’s positions in the past which could also very securely be grounded in the Bible.  I realized how my elders had abandoned their original position as leaders and listeners… which had initially drawn me to them and this fellowship in the first place.  I thought they had the openness to talk about major biblical issues, but in the end I found I was wrong about them.  Ever since then I’ve felt more free to study other major biblical issues, and I’ve found I was wrong on other major positions in my opinion.  All of this has only humbled me further, but it’s difficult.  We miss everyone. We’re upset we did not get a full meeting and get to say good-bye to the fellowship.  They were our family for over 2 years …and despite whatever has happened between us… that time and all that I learned in the company of Refining Fire Fellowship for those few years will not be forgotten.



5 Comments on “From Trinitarianism to [Biblical] Unitarianism: My testimony”

  1. Brad says:

    Hi Sean,

    I just finished reading your “Journey to Biblical Unitarianism”. Something I wanted to ask about that got me intrigued was what it is you know concerning the Memra that is mentioned in the Targums. This was of interest to myself in a different context. My knowledge of the Memra is simply that it is the “breath” of God, the “words” that come forth from YHWH. The ancient pictographic writing for MeMRa would be Mem-Mem-Resh. Mem is a symbol of water/waves and Resh is the symbol of a man’s head. So the two symbols are of water and man. These things symbolise the very thing that the words of YHWH “moves upon” in the beginning.


    • droptozro says:

      Yep sounds about right. I haven’t studied the topic in a long time, but from what I remember in the Targums that the Israelites made in Aramaic… they used “memra” as an anthropomorphism/metonym for the name of YHWH. Rather they could then refer to the “memra” instead of saying “YHWH” when speaking of Him. But it makes perfect sense that God’s “words” became flesh.

      The big issue I took with the mis-use of “word” in John 1 is that when this was written/known… there were other views of the “memra” historically. But the largest foundation that existed would have been the Old Testament Scriptures for John to have written with understanding. So when it comes to “logos/word” in the Old Testament, there is not one place I ever found that showed this “logos” as referring to a literal pre-existent “person”(i.e. Jesus Christ). In the Old Testament it usually refers to “words” or “prophecy” in some form. It’s just not as cut and dry as trinitarians/oneness try to make it. I’ve found various possibilities since then today that may make sense in John 1 with the use of the “memra” or “word.” I don’t have them all on hand now, just recalling them.

      Thank you for the comment and thank you for reading it all and adding some information for others to see. I was just mainly upset the elders acted like I was talking out of left field(and accused of gnosticism) when that information of the “memra” originally was in the book THEY gave me to read.


      • Brad says:

        I only briefly touched on these ideas concerning the person of Jesus Christ in the time before His coming in the flesh. It immediately made sense to me that He is the very BREATH of God, or as we would call it, the “Word” of God. John 1 highlights these thoughts very well, that Yeshua is the “Word” of God. Remove the blinders of a canon Bible, and it starts to become clear.

        This is another nail in the coffin of KJVOnlyism. KJVO tends to equivocate “Word of God” with “Canon Bible”. This is not what was being thought of when the Apostle John said that He (Yeshua) is the Word.

        This new understanding of how the Apostle John was thinking when using this terminology didn’t cause me to question the idea of the personhood of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit. It only moved me to modify my understanding of this. It would take some pretty explicit verses that speak against the idea of there being the Persons of the Godhead, rather than the Person of the Godhead. Things like the Sh’ma do fit into the Persons of the Godhead view, as it is true for us to say, “Adonai Echad”. It would be frustrating to a Unitarian arguing against the Persons view when they are putting their understanding upon something that the other person has no agreement on. We must see the Scripture in it’s immediate context, and the Sh’ma is speaking of the Father. It is the Father who had revealed Himself to the children of Israel. I don’t really see there being anymore for me to add to that idea.

        One of the things that made me a little wary of your path, was this YouTube channel you speak of. I don’t know much about it, and haven’t seen any of the videos. My general opinion of most channels is someone getting their far out views heard and a few tagging along. I would need to examine it myself before deciding which side of the fence this guy is on. There are some that I like to watch, but concerning their views, I have to take with a grain of salt and examine it carefully to see what is the truth. Your response to TheTrinityDelusion is that it’s the truth. Someone else’s response to it is that it is not the truth.

        Something that I need clarification on. What does Unitarianism view concerning Jesus? Born only as flesh and then exalted? Was there any pre-existent incarnation? I’m not sure how you view Jesus’ timeline, starting from the moment before this Universe, up until now.

        Liked by 1 person

    • droptozro says:

      Hey Brad,

      For some reason I’m unable to reply directly to your second message, so I’ll have to do it here.

      Yes the canon actually needs to be challenged(not just blindly accepted, nor necessarily the “word of God”), there are even some fellows I know who actually reject the Gospel of John. They are not without their reasons, and I understand why even though I have still hold onto it at this point.

      KJVOnlyists drive me nuts. There is no talking with them… I’m not trying to be rude, but the truth is I’d get more of a response from a brick wall than a good majority of KJVOnlyists in an attempt at conversation.

      I’m not quite sure I fully understand your 3rd paragraph. You seem to claim the “persons” can be input into the Sh’ma or God, and then in the latter portion you agree that the Father is the one whom the Sh’ma is speaking of directly. I don’t personally know if I’m responding properly here–but I cannot accept any place where exegetically one can find a single place in the entirety of the Bible canon of today where “God” refers to all 3 persons at once. I never found it. In the most clarity, the NT without debate between any view–it’s agreed that the Father is equal to the word “God/theos” 99% of the time(and there’s roughly 1,317 instances of that word “theos”). That’s a large foundation I rested my views on before taking on any text regarding that where it appears Jesus was being called or accused of being “God.” In my experience I found better explanations to all these texts through cross-references or context where “God” seemed to be aimed at Jesus.

      “Spirit” and/or “Holy Spirit” is another study of itself. Sometimes I agree it can refer to a person(meaning the Father and/or Jesus, also sometimes an angel)–but most of the time it refers to the Father’s authority vested in power. It’s His(the Father’s) power and presence active most often I found… so it can sound as person and not as a person at other times. This was a tricky study. But it’s been a while.

      The Youtube channel and website of TheTrinityDelusion is a fellow named Kel. He was an avid trinitarian for 20+ years if I remember correctly. He has a testimony video last I knew. He’s studied the topic of the trinity for 30+ years now, and 10+ of those years were after he came out of the trinity. He basically makes his studies known, and made the website with all available arguments/knowledge/claims of trinitarians and examined them at great length. I don’t agree with him on everything, and even initially I did not. I questioned him a lot in the beginning of my dealings with him mainly because he would actually answer rather than fight. It was mainly his video(which I have linked above in the blog) which caused me a great setback. I don’t follow anyone blindly… even when I was initially looking at his stuff after I came out of the trinity I was more Arian.

      Your clarification questions, thanks for asking. Actually the views of “biblical unitarianism” in general seems to uphold all those views. There are Arians(pre-existence believers) and Socinians(reject literal pre-existence). I personally am more Socinian now, meaning yes I believe that’s what made Jesus’ act and exaltation so amazing—is that he was a man alone who fully obeyed God all the way to death, and then was raised, justified and exalted to the literal right hand of the Father for his actions. I don’t believe in a literal pre-existence though I’m aware of how much the OT speaks of his(Jesus) coming and some texts in the NT seem to point a pre-existence. It really depends on the presuppositions one holds, but neither position truly challenges biblical unitarianism. I’ve even found one individual who thinks Jesus was a pre-existent son of God(like one of many) who became flesh. I can see how he gets it, but it reminds me of mormonism.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s