Update, still busy…

Posted: February 27, 2015 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Hey all again… for anyone who cares haha…

Still really busy. But updating very quickly. We did find land a couple months ago and bought it, just under 6 acres! It was actually the original first plot we saw, but visited multiple times to see if it’s what we wanted and compare to others. It’s near my work and about 20 minutes from town. So we’re out in the country, and have a little more privacy and space to work with… we’re excited!

Things are movingly quickly though!  I know it’s freezing right now, and that’s halting plans… but spring is almost here.  We got the land cleared and are now getting ready to put the culvert in for the driveway easement.  Then the gravel driveway and plot will be put down. After that, putting down a small 12′ x 24′ lofted cabin to get started.  Can’t wait!

Don’t forget that my wife is due with our 2nd child come the first week of April! Our apartment lease ends in May. So, it’s all kind of a perfect storm month by month.

Off the grid is coming though, very soon. Hope to update and post pictures and things to gain a bit of a following for this also. I know people are interested in this type of stuff.

That’s all for now.  Eventually we will plan to have internet access on a more consistent basis on the land…but initially I doubt we will have it. We will have to use the local library or the McDonald’s down the street to update and check things.  It’s going to be different not having the internet on constant access…  I think that will be my biggest change.  I’m used to camping, but this is more of a permanent camping trip on a plot of land.  My wife on the other hand…thinks this will turn her world upside-down.  It’s going to be fun!

Busy…

Posted: December 11, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Sorry all…. I know I’ve not kept up with my posts and everything lately.  I’ve had a lot of other studies on the mind lately… including the Torah(since Jesus kept it, and Paul did also), which has given me a bit of stir of my faith much like running into biblical unitarianism did.  There’s a huge issue with having a false God, and likely also a huge issue if Christians are to be keeping the Torah(not FOR salvation) but are not keeping it… a number of verses are very clear showing God will not even answer our prayers(or calls them an abomination, that Proverb 28:9 clearly means the Torah, not just PART of it) if we’re not keeping the Torah, or attempting to keep it in spirit.  It would make a sure explanation of why modern professing Christianity is so divided today and way off course since many do not even recognize the most important Law of the entire Torah being the Sh’ma.  I mean, not only does most of modern professing Christianity have a false tri-une god in some form… they also ignore the Sh’ma.   It’s amazing… I cannot remember one time in the entirety of my life I ever really cared about the Sh’ma from childhood church for 10 years all the way up to 3 years in a very faithful church to the commandments(or so I was thinking) of Jesus until I repented of trinitarianism.  Most professing Christians don’t care at all about the greatest commandment really because they aren’t looking at who SAID it and who KEPT It… Jesus.  “Hear O’ Israel, YHWH our God, YHWH is one” – Jesus, Mark 12:29.  Just remove that “our” and you can read into that verse all you’d like…

Anyways… the other big study has been to refresh my mind on our off-grid search for land. Since we sold our home back near the church locale finally… we have the money to start looking for land and building off-grid to grow our own organic food and raise smaller animals on a farm.  We want to be out of debt and stay home more to take care of our family… or I do since I work outside the home.  It’s more healthy and more self-sufficient in the long run once we get used to it. Anyways, those plans are looking to begin to come to fruition finally… years later.  So we’re busy looking for land and trying to hone in on a good spot to do all these plans.  It’s going to be busy prepping… so biblical studies have taken a step aside lately.  I have like 5 books I’m backed up on I’d still like to read… not counting the homestead/off-grid ones!  So yeah… figured I’d just post a short update.

Hope everything’s going well for you all.  Keep studying and telling the truth about the one God and one Messiah… it’s the only way we’re going to begin to reform modern Christianity back to it’s real biblical roots.

-Sean

Responding to James White

Posted: October 17, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Hello,

I know I haven’t been on in a while(been busy studying and reading other topics)… so this post is not necessarily an open post—but it is the easiest way to directly respond to a small dialogue contention I have with Mr. James White on twitter and include the full context objections and response.  This may seem like a long response, but it’s only long for copying Scripture and responses of both of us.

I have been reading Mr. White’s book “The Forgotten Trinity” on the side and plan to do a more full review (along with a whole line of other reviews and things that have been on my mind lately) in the future.  The opportunity presented itself on twitter[as I’ve tried many times before] to present some errors and inconsistencies I believe can be found in his arguments and book just based on a cursory reading.

My original objection posts to his book were as follows.

Haha, cute. I’ll give you a few just for starters… 1) your huge inconsistency in arguing that the holy spirit is a “he”…

..a “he,” so thus you mean that the spirit is a person(p. 140). Yet you also call the being YHWH a “He” on pg.35….

…so you called the being a person, against your own arguments not to mix them up! Next, on the same page 35 you even note..

…note that Jesus quoted the Sh’ma! In all your Greek knowledge, you still haven’t learned English grammar! “our”… Jesus..

…Jesus said “OUR” God, what does “our” mean? His God. That’s just to start.. wait til I do cross-referencing in blog.

After some batting back and forth, Mr. White responded more directly, this is his post below.

@titus2_11_14 OK Sean, I really don’t have time this evening (trying to get a chapter finished in a book I’m way behind on), but since you made the accusation: one-person God, eh? Which is why the biblical authors repeatedly differentiate between the Father and the Son (the Son using personal pronouns of address of the Father and vice-versa) and yet those same authors identify each as YHWH? The identification of Jesus as Yahweh, together with the differentiation that is plainly included by the same authors, is the death knell of unitarianism—at least, any unitarianism that pretends fidelity to the entire canon of Scripture. 2) Yes, the Spirit is a Person, which is why He speaks, wills, acts, and can communicate the PERSONAL presence of the Father and Son to believers, amongst other things. 3) The Scriptures will often refer to Yahweh in the singular, hence it is quite proper to do so when the Bible is not differentiating the Persons. Since God acts in unity it is not improper to use such language. Only a confused unitarian would insist upon complete differentiation of the Persons in every text. 4) Of course Jesus quoted the Shema—He wasn’t an atheist you know. What would you expect the Perfect Man to do, deny it? That does not change the reality that when Paul gives us the Shema in 1 Cor 8:6-7, he expands it to include the Son! 5) I have debated a number of unitarians. Same old story, sadly, just in a few minor keys, depending on the “spin” they give it to try to get a unique audience. You want to debate? What have you published? What is your experience in debate? Do you read the biblical languages? There are lots of young guns who want to “debate,” but I have come to the point in my life where I think I’ve earned the right to make selections in my debates based upon what would seem to benefit the most people and reach the widest audience on the topics that the Lord leads me to view as most important and weighty. So tell me—what do you have to offer that Anthony Buzzard didn’t offer in his debate with Michael Brown and myself? You even admit you haven’t seen the Stafford debate, so…leaves me wondering.

Mr. White then asked this in twitter adding on.

BTW…could you identify, specifically, your religious profession? What church do you represent?

Mr. White’s first objection is that Jesus is identified as YHWH(and he doesn’t list texts, but I’m aware of the texts usually used)…  I don’t think that ultimately helps his case at all, because necessarily two identities with the same name, that are not each other… makes 2 YHWH’s(YHWH the Father, and YHWH the Son).  This isn’t difficult, if I have two identities named “Bob” that are not each other(lets say “Bob the Father” and “Bob the son”—that’s two Bob’s… not one Bob.  This isn’t even about the trinitarian definition of “person” ultimately, but identity and names.  If you have two identities named “Bob”–then if you claim to have one “Bob,” you’re either illogical, equivocating, or that same “Bob” is upholding two different roles(modes in oneness type talk).  Likewise, simply put if Jesus is literally YHWH, you’ve made two YHWH’s.  If this simple logic has to be explained any further I’d be quite discouraged.  And before it’s possibly even used a rebuttal, I’ll address that one cannot claim this type of simple logic cannot be applied to YHWH.  I’ve heard this very bad rebuttal from multitudes of trinitarians online who cannot answer this simple objection.  Trinitarians often try to equate their arguments to God Himself, and thus claim He is so far beyond us He is not able to have this type of logic applied to Him.  This is just a form of ad hoc if it’s at all attempted to be used… the arguments of a trinitarian are not God Himself, and they are trying to remove their arguments from true criticism by removing them from logical bounds.  If that were so, then they should not criticize my arguments either… and we’re all wasting our time.  God is logical, God created logic… no one should be raising logic above God, but that doesn’t mean to throw it aside when analyzing what He revealed to us through Scripture and analyze other’s arguments.  Again, that’s just a pre-hit.. I’m not saying Mr. White used this argument that I’ve read… in fact he engages logic and says in his book that we should use our minds to love God.  But at the same time he attempts to claim that our language is too finite to God to truly explain Him.  While I might agree with that in some format, I don’t believe it applies to how many God is… He created language, and used language to communicate to us what He desired us to know about Him.  So I don’t believe He would give us language(and math), and then confuse us by making us reject simple grammar and logic to understand this language in order to attempt to explain how many God truly is…

I obviously do not believe Jesus is literally YHWH, but represents Him. YHWH works through His son by His spirit, just like He did in the OT and with the apostles.  I think short reading of Isaiah 45 would show an implied example explained in this by YHWH Himself. YHWH says He is going to save Israel from Babylon.  Over and over He repeats He will do it, it’s all Him, it’s not an idol, He is the only God… but at the beginning YHWH speaks about using Cyrus the king to accomplish this task.  Would anyone dare think Cyrus is YHWH? No, obviously not.  Even though God is the one who ultimately is to be praised and thanked for the deliverance from Babylon—Cyrus is the king who went through with the entire physical task of saving Israel.  This is not a difficult concept, it happens all the time… even in our modern day USA.  If Obama sent troops to save a people in another nation from slavery… Obama would be praised as the main authority even though he didn’t lift a finger to truly aid the people.  He just gave out the order.  Now obviously God is much more powerful in enacting His works… but the parallel is there, and I believe can be shown in other areas also.

I actually agree with point 2 to some degree. I believe the Holy Spirit can be called a “He” and refer to a PERSON(at times), but I would mean the person of the Father and/or the Son(who is now life-giving spirit according to 1 Cor 15)… not a separate 3rd PERSON.  The point of my claim was not necessarily that you argue that the Spirit is a PERSON.  The point is that you use the argument in your book(and you repeated it in this post) regarding “will, acts…communicate” and “I, me, He”  to claim the Spirit is a PERSON.  You also call the one BEING, YHWH according to your definition a “He”(and the Bible does)…. if you would keep your own argument consistent… then the BEING is now being argued as a PERSON according to your own words.  The one YHWH of the Bible “speaks, acts, and has a will” and is a “He”(see Isaiah 45:22-23, or even better, Deut 32:6, 39)—so it fits exactly your definition of a PERSON.  The problem is, that makes you equivocate and contradict your own words not to mix up the WHOs and the WHATs… the PERSON and the BEING.  Unless you’re going to claim the 3 PERSONs of the trinity speak as a single PERSON… which that makes absolutely no sense since you’d be saying 3 PERSONs is 1 PERSON.  So instead you’ve called the one YHWH a BEING, and then given it PERSONal attributes.  The only other possible option to this, is you actually have a 4th PERSON in your doctrine… the Tri-une God.  The Tri-une God would then be your 4th PERSON who “speaks, acts, wills” as a singular PERSON which is not the other 3 PERSONs, nor the BEING.  The other point is ultimately that you called the one YHWH(being) a “He,” and then necessarily the Father, Son and Spirit are all “He’s” according to your doctrine(and Scripture at times)….so then you’ve got 3 He’s(persons) that are 1 He(being).  This is 3 = 1 or equivocation. I spent much time analyzing your words and listening to your arguments and others to figure this out.  It’s very clear if you’re forced to define terms… which is something I heavily agree with in your book.  Defining terms is part of what made me abandon the trinity.  This paragraph sort of addresses #3 also unless I mis-understood or you mis-understood my objection.

#4 is interesting again… since you avoid the objection ultimately.  The point is that it says “our”—Jesus did not say “your,” then you might have a chance to inject the tri-une God into that Sh’ma.  “Our” in our language(and Greek) means “yours and mine” in a literal explanation.  I would ask you, do you believe Jesus kept the Torah perfectly? If so, is the Sh’ma and the law Jesus quoted about loving God and neighbor also part of the Torah?  So then, Jesus is truly under this Law, truly under the Sh’ma.  Is Jesus an Israelite?  So this command is for him also, for Jesus.  So this YHWH, this LORD is Jesus’ God.  Jesus isn’t just “quoting the Sh’ma” for fun… this has historical and immediate context which trinitarians ignore to uphold their doctrine by vacuuming it out.  If the YHWH of the Sh’ma is truly the tri-une God, then Jesus is plainly saying by inputting your doctrine that his God is Father, Son, and Spirit in one YHWH.  So Jesus’ God, is himself along with two others according to you?  That’s nonsense… Jesus’ God is his Father, lest you deny the plain grammar of the word “our” and the fact that Jesus was/is under the Law.

It’s actually very interesting that you attempted to tie in 1 Cor 8:6 to the Sh’ma.  It’s directly related, but not being “expanded” as you claim.  Honestly, if you’re a pastor with as much experience and study as I’m aware of… that is a rather bold claim… since you would necessarily be accusing Paul of altering God’s Torah, and thus he would be teaching sin, and a false teacher(and deserving of death).  The Torah never allows anyone to alter it, or add to it(expand)…Deut 4:2 is crystal clear.  I do not believe Paul as a Jew who kept the Torah is expanding the Sh’ma… I believe he’s taught exactly what Jesus taught in Mark 12:28-37.  He’s talking about who the one God is(the Father) and the one lord is(Jesus Christ)… which is Psalm 110:1.  This is exact passage Jesus quoted right after explaining the Sh’ma in Mark 12.  He identifies himself as the one lord in submission to the one God(YHWH), and that he is the “my lord” of David.  Peter’s preaching in Acts 2:29-36 makes this whole passage of Psalm 110:1, and Mark 12:28-37 even more clear in cross-reference with my inserted bold brackets only to define WHO is being spoken of…

Acts 2:29 “Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God[Father] had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He[Father] would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, 31 he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. 32 This Jesus God[Father] has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. 33 Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God[Father], and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.

34 “For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself:

‘The Lord[Father] said to my Lord[Jesus],
“Sit at My right hand,
35 Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”’
36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God[Father] has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

Truly there are so many cross-references and so much unpacking to do in this area of text it gets me excited to explain… but if you don’t see it already, then you could also watch my short video on the subject.  It’s not necessary, but it’s just showing the links of this same passage also in Mark 12:28-37.

See that video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THn4wfFSbAQ

It’s to me, very clear in explaining this same passage that it links to 1 Cor 8:6, and Mark 12:28-37.  Peter’s preaching has made it clear who the ONE YHWH(Father) is… and who the one lord(Jesus) is…  this Psalm 110:1 is a thread through-out the NT.  1 Cor 15 also explains the same concept.

I am a nobody in the scheme of things Mr. White.  I am just someone who was a trinitarian, yet started to catch errors in my own explanations and words about 2 years ago now.  Thus began a long study and research to verify or tweak the trinity per se…and I realized my views were beginning to line up with what most called “biblical unitarianism.”  The trinity essentially kept getting tweaked to fit clearer Scriptures until I realized it was a wreck and needed junked after over a year of study.  Then, that repentance got me kicked out of my former church with no true hearing of why I changed my mind ultimately.  I have no representation, nor no direct denominational line at this point.  There are very few unitarians in our area of living… the closest I’m aware of is about an hour away.  That is why I said you would gain nothing by debating me… I am no great debater.  In fact, I’m much better with text and analyzing one’s words and explanations slowly since it gives me more time to test what I’m hearing/reading.  I have not written any books, though I may in the future YHWH willing. I know very little Greek grammar in the larger picture and nothing of Hebrew. I don’t base all my knowledge on that, though I plan to expand that knowledge in the future.  I mainly rely on my own studies in English, and compare yours and others words in Greek.  I may not know much Greek and I don’t go around teaching it in a huge fashion since I know that’s dangerous… but I know enough grammar basics to check up things and understand them from both sides with research and rehashing my memory.  I didn’t read any unitarian books until after I changed my mind, but after reading them they did not add much to my knowledge overall.  Only a couple of them actually address trinitarian arguments in more depth.  That is my overall concern that makes me think I should eventually turn many thoughts, notes, and blogs into a book one day hopefully.  I would debate you, but it would have to be much further in the future if you accepted.  That’s not necessarily a challenge, since I cannot come through on it presently and prepare at this point in time.  I’m just someone who analyzes words, grammar, and logic very closely to test things well… and if given the opportunity I could press many errors out if you’d answer questions directly(or clearly reveal if they’re fallacious questions).  But in open speech, I’m by no means authoritative nor a good debater in my own evaluation.  I’m not ultimately about debate though… I’d be more about convincing the audience than you, because even I know you wouldn’t have changed my mind 3-4 years ago.  I had to question it myself and test it well and it took a lot of time going through hundreds of Scriptures and arguments to find out if there were better and more consistent answers.

The only way I can get the belief out about this is to object, answer, post, blog, make videos and speak on it until it’s heard.  The ultimate concern I have is for the Messiah himself and God.  Why?  Because millions of people claim to be following the Messiah(even I in the past), yet they deny the Messiah and his one God.  Simple simple questions brought me to understand that to follow someone… is to believe exactly and teach exactly and do exactly what they did.  That’s not so hard, is it?  Jesus is not a trinitarian my friend, he does not have a 3-person God…. he has a one-person God.   The trinity attempts to make Jesus into an idolator and sinner, which is surely blasphemous.  So millions of people claim to be following someone, yet they have a different God than the man they claim to be following, and then condemn those who have the same one God as the Messiah.  How can a doctrine be so far gone as to condemn the Messiah himself?

This is long enough, thank you for your time.  If I make any edits to clarify anything from now on I’ll note them with asterik marks.

-Sean

Refining Fire Fellowship: Testing Statement of Faith Part 1

Posted: September 6, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Hello all,

I’ve decided to do a direct Scriptural criticism of the statement of faith of my former church in two parts.  The real point of this is not to just openly reveal the errors and bring attention to them… but to hopefully reach my former brothers and sisters in Christ with the truth if they’re actually willing to “test all things”(1 Thess 5:21) as the Scripture teaches.  From here on out, I can only hope that they will test what I am saying and the Scriptures compared to their own statement of faith and see the clear errors.  If you are really seeking God’s truth and words on the issue, you will see what I am saying, seek more and study more… and repent… if you’re not, you’re only further deluding yourself and risk complete apostasy.  This …this is your chance to repent and search out the truth as I did.  Read on, or stop and continue your delusion… your choice.

 

If you go to this website, you can see the current statement of faith.  http://refiningfirefellowship.com/our-beliefs/

 

The next below quote is from the current page as it is now defining their belief in the doctrine of the trinity.

* We believe that there is only one true and living God, eternally existing in three “persons”: the Father, Son (Also called “The Word”) and Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:1, Deuteronomy 6:4, Matthew 28:19, John 10:30, John 1:1-2, 1 John 5:6-8).

 So lets start with the statement itself regarding the words “only one true and living God.”  Because this is that which they believe is the one and only God, the tri-une God.  If that were true, we should find many texts showing that the Father, Son and spirit are the true and living God(or part of it, or something along those lines).  So lets find some Scriptures that are clear to determine if the “one true and living God” is truly the *one* tri-une God in context.  Again, there are many references, but lets start with “living God” in exactly that word order with clear verses since clear contextual verses should be used to understand any unclear verses.

 

Hosea 1:10

10 “Yet the number of the children of Israel
Shall be as the sand of the sea,
Which cannot be measured or numbered.
And it shall come to pass
In the place where it was said to them,
‘You are not My people,’[d]
There it shall be said to them,
‘You are sons of the living God.’

 

So… if you are a “son” of the living God? Who then is the living God?  This one’s only clear by implication since we are sons of God, and the living God would then be our Father.  This is also quoted in Romans 9:26 Lets find a clearer one.

 

Matthew 16:15-16

15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

 

This one is a bit more clear.  This is a defining verse where Jesus is asking who he is to his apostles, and Peter gives this profound answer to which Jesus praises Peter.  So, in context… who is the living God if Jesus is the “son” of the living God?  None other than the Father.  The tri-une God does not have a son… that’s saying the Father, Son and Spirit has a Son… that doesn’t work.

Matthew 26:63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!”

 

This one again is quite clear if the high priest is correct in his objection.  Who then is the living God that Christ was put under oath by?  None other than the Father.  Jews are not trinitarians, so to even attempt to eisegetically input “tri-une God” into that text would be nonsense.

 

John 6:69 Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

 

Are we beginning to see a pattern now?  If Jesus is the son of the living God, who is it other than the Father?

 

2 Corinthians 3:3 clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart.

4 And we have such trust through Christ toward God. 5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God,6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit;[a] for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

 

This one’s a little more difficult, but I figured it would give it mention since Christ is also mentioned in the same context.  This text is more directly referencing the spirit of the living God, but it is clear that God is the Father who GAVE his spirit to them to minister the covenant.  We can see this by a clear cross-reference in Acts 2:17-33 that the Father poured out the spirit given to Jesus, and Jesus gave it to his followers.  Or we can look at the baptism, to see that God the Father conferred the authority to His son when he baptized Jesus in the spirit by John the Baptist.  The living God is the Father, not a tri-une God.

 

2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you[b] are the temple of the living God. As God has said:

 

“I will dwell in them
And walk among them.
I will be their God,
And they shall be My people.”[c]

17 Therefore

“Come out from among them
And be separate, says the Lord.
Do not touch what is unclean,
And I will receive you.”[d]
18 “I will be a Father to you,
And you shall be My sons and daughters,
Says the LORD Almighty.”[e]

 

This one’s about as crystal clear as it can get also.  Who is the living God, the Father… and it says “LORD” meaning “YHWH” at the end to clarify who is the YHWH Almighty.  It’s the Father, not a tri-une God.  We are not sons and daughters of Jesus,  we are sons and daughters of God the Father.

 

There are many other mentions of “living God” that you’re welcome to look up, and I believe in context it’s clear they refer to the Father if you follow “whos who” through the text, but none of them refer to Jesus in any direct fashion and some are less clear.  Jesus is clearly the son of the living God, the son of the Father, his God.

 

Lets move onto the next phrase, “true God.”

 

There are not as many direct exact quotations of this phrase, but enough to clearly show who it is… take a look for yourself.

 

John 17:1 Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, 2 as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

 

This one is about as clear as it can get.  Jesus is praying to his Father, and called him “the only true God.” Notice that, an article “THE”—not “a” or just “only true God” as many trinitarian apologists try to twist this passage and mis-represent it.  The only true God is the Father, obviously.  And be careful, because this is a prayer about exactly how one gains eternal life… are you sure you know the only true God?…or are you in idolatry?

 

1 Thessalonians 1:9 For they themselves declare concerning us what manner of entry we had to you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, 10 and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead,even Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

 

This one even has the last phrase of “living..God” as part of the description of who the true God is… this really should seal it, the “living and true God” is the Father.  But we will do one more often considered a bit confusing.  But do remember that John wrote his gospel before his letters… the clarity of the Gospel should govern the confusing grammar of this next verse.

 

1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.

 

The Son of God came why? To give us an understanding of the one who is true, his Father(as stated in John 17:3).   And if we are in Jesus Christ, then we are IN the Father..the true God… his God.  The Father is the true God, and eternal life is given by being in his son and thus in the Father.  See clearly in more context of John 17

 

John 17:20 “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will[ believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23 I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.

 

Don’t let the grammar confuse you, this is only re-stating John’s teachings from his Gospel…. the true God is the Father.

 

This will be the end of the first criticism of the Refining Fire Fellowship statement of faith used to support the trinity.  The next part will criticize the mis-use of the Scripture proof-texts listed in the statement of faith.

 

I barely had to say much, this much should be clear that the statement of faith is a lie and un-Scriptural.  The “one and only true and living God” is not a tri-une being…. the one and only true God is the FATHER.  I beg you, I spent over a year(almost 2 now) heavily studying this issue and cross-referencing verse after verse.  Take the time and look over it again.  The only true God is the Father.  I pray that God grants you repentance and at least the willingness to take a look at the next post made to deal with the verses used …rather than avoiding it and making arguments irrelevant to the clear texts given.

 

God bless,

Sean

 

Unitarianism REFUTED using Granville Sharps rule…. not really, just a non-sequitur

Posted: September 3, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , | 10 Comments

So recently, my former pastor attempted to do a shortly put-together(he admits this in the video, because it was on the fly type of teaching) teaching on the “rule” that Granville Sharp discovered in Greek grammar 1800 years later. You can watch the video above linked.  I will eventually do a more full response and likely post a video, but it takes a while to truly compile the texts, cross-references, and facts that were not revealed in the teaching to show the errors.  I will hopefully be able to do a text by text contextual response, since context should govern the grammar.  Otherwise, I end up with the same type of on-the-fly response, because it’s even been a while since I’ve delved into the Granville Sharp rules.

The reason the context should govern the grammar is the exact reason this argument fails when it’s used in the English.  The pastor brought it into the argument, so it applies in rebuttal.  If one says “This is my best friend and my wife (name)” it can be referring to two different persons, or the same person.  Yet the pastor doesn’t want to recognize or admit that this works exactly the same way using the other form “This is my best friend and wife (name).”  Why? Because context governs it.  If I was out somewhere new and was introducing my family to another individual, I could easily say “This is my wife and daughter (name).”  The context reveals I have 2 other persons with me, my own daughter is not my wife… and that could be easily understood without another “my” in the second part of the statement preceding “daughter.”  It really falls flat on it’s face in the English, and grammar is not really a place trinitarians want to enter… it is an un-even battle.

I cannot say for sure why… because I do not know the motives, but many things were left out in this teaching.  It is one simple fact that this “rule” is still debated amongst scholars and translators. There are even many trinitarian apologists who admit that this rule is not decisive and outright fallacious place to found an argument.  It’s not as full-proof as both my former elder and other trinitarian apologists like James White try to press.  The very fact that multitudes of translations still inconsistently translate this “rule” shows enough that it’s not “without exception” even though the translations came well after the “rule” was established.  

In fact, in the video itself 2 Thessalonians 1:12 is mentioned and it does separate God from Christ.  Of course, we’re all(including me) translation critics when it comes to our theology… nothing new in that though.  A simple short study shows that Calvin Winstanley produced 4 different categories of exceptions to this rule, one of them even being in the LXX of Proverbs 24:21 saying “My son, fear the LORD and the king;”  This fits the TSKS standard, and it is clearly about two persons.  Calvin also found many extra-biblical instances in which the rule did not fit, and many in the early church writings which also were exceptions to the rule.  I guess the early church Greek speaking church wasn’t aware of this “rule” because they did not hold to it.

And therein lies one of the largest problems… you cannot prove the “rule” existed.  No one talks about it, no one’s used it, no one promotes any of these texts with this type of rule in any time in the past until Granville Sharp…. with his entire motive being that he was trying to support the deity of Christ by grammar and searching for these types of patterns.

There are many more things I could comment on the double-standard and hypocrisy of accusing unitarians of using their minds to love God and assess Scripture… but I’ll leave it for the video probably.

One of the last things I will comment on, is the title of my own response.  And that is… that this is a non-sequitur.  Even if, if… it was granted that the Granville Sharp rule was true, and legitimate without exception… it still stands that one must prove that the “o theos”(God) in those texts must mean capital “G”od…. not “god” as in “ruler” which Jesus even used as his own defense in John 10:34 wherein God called his own people(judges) “gods.” It rests as a burden of proof on trinitarians to prove this because of the foundation which came before it in Jesus’ own explanation.  *edit*… I also thought later of the fact that trinitarians also have to prove it does NOT mean God the Father.  Obviously I would never accept that, and neither would they–but the point stands because they have to prove otherwise since 99% of the time “o theos” clearly refers to the FATHER.  So they would have to prove that Jesus is not being called the Father.  I know, it’s nuts… but remember we were essentially told in the video that we cannot use our minds, just accept the Scripture as it is without any critical thinking…. and even then leads to more problems if it is attempted to be proven.  The point is, as the video’s own explanation tries to say… that this “rule” utterly refutes unitarianism, is a non-sequitur.  It doesn’t follow.

Why? Because the moment you make another identity “God” with a capital “G”–you have two “Gods.”  This is masked by equivocation and using the unbiblical word “person” to hide it.  This isn’t high-minded theology, it’s grade school grammar and logic one uses every single day without question.  Yet when it comes to trinitarian theology, out the window it goes.  This is why I said trinitarians don’t really want to enter this gate… grammar is their largest enemy. So we know that “o theos” comes from the Greek, and it’s modeled from the Hebrew “elohim” meaning “Mighty One.”  It’s a title, not necessarily a name.

If I have:

Boss One

Boss Two

and:

Boss One is not Boss Two

Then, it follows:

I have 2 Bosses. 

Thus, if I have:

God the Father

God the Son

and:

God the Father is not God the Son

Then, it follows:

I have 2 Gods, 2 Mighty Ones.

And this is where the trinitarian tries to claim “it’s a mystery” or “you’re using philosophy” or “God’s infinite, you cannot use logic.”  I cannot shake my head hard enough… anything to deny the Sh’ma and that one truly means one.

It’s the fallacy of ad hoc… save the theory at all costs, even if it means denying the logic you use to read the Scriptures themselves and evaluate what is therein.  It’s even worse, because the theory itself makes the Messiah into a sinner… good job trinitarians.  You saved your theory trying to make it unfalsifiable by removing it from the minds of any possible criticism(though you have no problem attempting to criticize others beliefs using logic), and then you condemned the Messiah you claim to be following.

It still stands, and it will always stand as a fact… that the Messiah is a unitarian.  Jesus still has(in terms of the trinity) a one-person God, his Father alone.  My beliefs do go back to the founder himself of the ekklesia… and that’s why I rest safely in them.

“Hear O’ Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one” – Jesus, Mark 12:29

Acts 3:13 The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob[Israel], the God of our fathers, glorified His Servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go

Until next time, 

God bless

Biblical Unitarian: Jesus is a (biblical) unitarian

Posted: August 29, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Explanations | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Hello All,

 

Figured I should update this again and make a short explanation.  I will likely link another video in here again soon with a fuller update as to how I came out of trinitarianism to actually FOLLOWING Jesus and becoming a (biblical) unitarian.  I must make that distinction because in the USA, “unitarianism” is almost automatically linked to the “unitarian universalism” church(meaning that all believers are united in one faith and all have salvation)… if you can even call it that.   This type of “unitarianism” I believe is false, yet the biblical unitarianism is strongly founded upon the Scriptures and believing in them.  Bibilical unitarian is only used in contradistinction between trinitarians (and binitarians).

So what does a biblical unitarian believe in general?  Well for starters, that “one” actually MEANS “one.”  It’s quite simple, they believe the same Sh’ma that Jesus quoted in Mark 12:28-34 coming from Deuternomy 6:4.

 

“Hear O Israel, The LORD our God, the LORD is one” – Jesus, Mark 12:29

 

Notice that “our”—it should be pretty important to know that Jesus was under the Law of Moses, not just quoting it for giggles as some might like to say.  But more on that another time.

We can get into other discussions and explanations later as to why no other possible view other than biblical unitarianism fulfills this text in its historical and immediate context.  That means that trinitarians, oneness, and binitarians all must vacuum this verse out of it’s historical and immediate context to uphold their view and eisegetically interpret it.

But on to the simplicity, the biblical unitarian stands on the whole of Scripture and tons of clear contextual verses that show that the Father alone… alone… is the one and only true and living God.  No one else, “One” truly means “one.”

Hopefully that’s enough to begin explaining what I believe and why I came to believe it.  I hope to make more posts and explanations why soon enough.

And remember, your Messiah, Jesus(Yeshua) is a Jewish unitarian. Don’t condemn him with your doctrine, or your doctrine is surely wrong!

God bless,

Sean

 

 

 

My first post

Posted: August 23, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

This is my first wordpress experience.  So bare with me… or is it “bear”…hmmm

 

Anyways.  I hope this all goes well and we can share the truth about the Scriptures and the one true God and His son who died for our sins.  

 

God bless

Newer Entries →