If Christendom is astray as to the Father and the Holy Spirit, it is not wonderful that we should find it astray in its conception of the Lord Jesus who is the manifestation of the Father by the Spirit. Christendom believes Christ to be the incarnation of one of three distinct essences, or personalities, which are supposed to constitute the God-head; and that though clothed in human form, he was God in the absolute sense of being the Creator.
This is the doctrine of the Trinitarian section of Christendom, in opposition to which, another section believes that Christ was a mere man, begotten in the ordinary process of generation, and distinguished above his fellows by a pre-eminent endowment of the “virtues” of human nature, which fitted him to be an example to mankind. This (the Unitarian) view regards him as a teacher sent from God, and is in some sense the Son of God; but denies the essential divinity of his nature. Both these views will be found equally removed from the truth. The truth lies between.
The testimonies which teach the indivisible unity of the Deity, as the One Father, out of whom ALL things have proceeded, and who is supreme above all, even above Christ (I Cor. 11:3), are inconsistent with the Trinitarian representation of God. The supremacy and unity of the Father would not be affirmable if there were three co-equal personalities in His One personality—a doctrine which presents us with a contradiction in terms as well as in sense. Jesus emphasises the distinction between himself and the Father, in the following statements:—
“I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me” (John 5:30).
“My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me” (John 7:16).
“It is written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself; and the Father that sent me (the other witness), beareth witness of me” (John 8:17–18).
“This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, AND Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent” (John 17:3).
The marked distinction recognised and affirmed in these statements is incompatible with the doctrine which regards the Son as an essential constituent of the one “triune” Father. There are “the Father,” “the Son,” and “the Holy Spirit.” The question is, what is the relation between the three, as taught in the Scriptures? The objection now urged is against the relation which Trinitarianism teaches to exist between these three. The endeavour is to show that they are not three co-equal powers in one, but powers of which one is the head and source of the others. The Father is eternal and underived; the Son is the manifestation of the Father in a man begotten by the Spirit; the Holy Spirit is the focalisation of the Father’s power, by means of His “free spirit,” which fills heaven and earth. There is, therefore, a trinity of existences to contemplate, and a certain unity subsisting in the trinity, inasmuch as both Son and Spirit are manifestations of the one Father; but the Trinitarian conception of the subject is excluded.
But the Unitarian view, still more so. Joseph was not the father of Jesus. He himself repudiated his paternity, and was about to put away Mary, his betrothed, when an angel came to him with this message:—
“Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife. For that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 1:20).
This marvel had been previously intimated to Mary by the angel Gabriel, as recorded in Luke 1:35:—
“The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee; and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”
The Unitarian evades these testimonies by denying the authenticity of the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke. The reasons for this denial are altogether flimsy and insufficient: nay, they are bad. The evidence in proof of the genuineness of the (by them) rejected chapters is more than decisive: it cannot be answered: it is irresistible. It leaves no room for doubt or gainsaying. There is the united evidence of all the accessible ancient MSS. and versions, supported by the recognition of the very earliest Christian writers, confirmed by the internal character of the chapters and the necessity for the event which they narrate, to explain the character and mission of Jesus of Nazareth. Against this, there is the merely negative fact that the disputed chapters are absent from the Ebionite gospel, which at the time of its production was pronounced a corruption; and from the Evangelium of Marcion, a gospel which he wrote to suit his own heathenish notions, and from which he recklessly omitted, not only the disputed chapters, but everything that interfered with his peculiar ideas.
The first writer who mentions the Ebionites is Irenæus, who speaks of them as a sect not only separated from the general body of Christians, but who opposed the doctrines preached by the Apostles, and rejected, not only the disputed chapters, but the greater part of the books of the New Testament, rejecting all the epistles of Paul, whom they called an apostate from the law. They only made use of a Hebrew gospel, which they called Matthew’s, but which differs from Matthew in many particulars besides the two chapters. Here is a sect which rejected whole books of authentic Scripture, because they were inimical to their notions. How can a reasonable man accept such a sect as affording guidance on the question of the authenticity of two particular chapters absent from their version, but present in almost all other MSS. throughout the world? Their “Matthew” was impugned at the time. It was proclaimed a corruption of the genuine gospel, while the “canonical” Matthew, as we have it, was never called in question. Epiphanius thus speaks:—“In that gospel which they (the Ebionites) have called the gospel according to Matthew, which is not entire and perfect, but corrupted and curtailed, and which they call The Hebrew Gospel, it is written” (and he quotes), “Thus,” says he, “they change the true account into a falsehood … They have taken away the genealogy from Matthew, and accordingly begin their gospel with these words: ‘It came to pass, in the days of Herod, King of Judæa.’ ” Origen alludes to it thus:—“It is written in a certain gospel, which is called, ‘according to the Hebrews,’ if indeed any one is pleased to receive it, NOT AS OF AUTHORITY, but for illustration of the present question” (and then he quotes). He afterwards quotes this as a specimen of the same gospel according to the Hebrews: “Just now my mother, the Holy Ghost, took me by one of my hairs, and carried me to the great mountain Tabor.” This absurdity, and another passage, quoted by Origen, prove that the text of the Hebrew gospel, read by Origen, was not the same as our Greek gospel of Matthew, with which its friends suppose it to be identical. It differed on many points besides the first two chapters. The absence of the first two chapters of Matthew from the Ebionite and Nazarene gospels is of no weight in view of their rejection of Paul’s epistles, which even the Unitarians accept. The omission is accounted for in the way the rejection of Paul’s epistles is accounted for; the two first chapters did not coincide with their notions, and therefore they struck them out. The Nazarene and Ebionite copies of Matthew’s gospel not only omit the first two chapters, but in several instances they contradict the other three gospels of Mark, Luke, and John, whereas the corresponding passages in our Greek copy of Matthew agree with them, which shows which way the tampering has occurred.
As to Marcion, he omitted the two disputed chapters: but he also rejected the whole of the Old Testament, both the law and the prophets, as proceeding from the God of the Jews, whom he regarded as the creator of this world, in contrast to a higher Creator. As to the New Testament, he made one for himself consisting of only one gospel, supposed to be compiled chiefly from Luke, and only ten of Paul’s epistles, which are altered from the received version in numerous instances, in order to make the text more pliable to his gnostic notions. People who quote him against the miraculous conception are bound consistently to follow him in these variations as well. He did not admit Christ to have been born at all. Consequently, be begins his gospel thus:—“In the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius, God descended into Capernaum.” He not only omits the first two chapters of Luke; he omits also the account of John the Baptist, the baptism of Christ, and his visit to Nazareth. He also omits part of chapter 8:19; 10:21; 11, part of verse 29, and all of verses 30, 31, 32, 49, 50, 51; 12:6, 28, part of verses 8, 30, 32; 13:1–5: altered verse 28, omitted from 29 to end of chapter: 15:11–32; 17, part of 10–12: whole of verse 13: whole of 17:31–33; 19:28–48; 20, from 9 to 18: also 37, 38; 21:18, 21, 22; 22:16, 35, 37, 50, 51; 23:43; 24:26–7, and verse 25 altered.
Those who quote Marcion as an authority in the case of the first two chapters, ought to accept him as such in all these cases. That they disregard him in these cases is a proof that, even in their opinion, his authority is of no weight.
The divine paternity of Jesus would stand an unassailable truth, even if the records of Matthew and Luke had no existence. These records are, however, invaluable. They are the circumstantial illustrations of a truth which, though the nature of the case, and the prophetic testimony necessitate it, we could not have so clearly and satisfactorily comprehended without them. They explain to us the appearance and character of Christ, and make us privy to the divine method of procedure, from its incipiency onwards, in the most wondrous work of God among men.
That Christ was an example in the sense of being “holy, harmless, and undefiled” is beyond doubt; but it is also true that he was a great deal more. The speciality of his mission is so plainly stated as to leave no room for the Unitarian doctrine of moral example. “Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world, ” said John the Baptist, on seeing Jesus (John 1:29). How did he take it away? The answer is in the words of the apostle Paul:—“He put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Heb. 9:26). Jesus himself had said, “I lay down my life for my sheep.” Paul also says to Timothy, in the second epistle, first chapter, tenth verse, “Jesus Christ hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel”; a fact which is stated by Christ himself in this form, “God sent His Son, that the world through him might be saved” (John 3:17). Furthermore, Peter says, “There is none other name under heaven given whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12). Salvation is thus directly connected with the first appearing of Christ, and with what he accomplished then; not on the principle of moral stimulus supplied, but in virtue of the essential result secured by the course he fulfilled.
Leaving both Trinitarianism and Unitarianism, we may find the truth in the Scriptures for ourselves. The simple appellation of “Son,” as applied to Christ, is sufficient to prove that his existence is derived, and not eternal. The phrase, “Son of God,” implies that the one God, the eternal Father, was antecedent to the Son, and that the Son had his origin in or “out of” the Father to whom he must therefore be subordinate in a sense inconsistent with Trinitarian representation. “This day have I begotten thee” is the language of Scripture, dearly pointing to a commencement of days. This view is confirmed by the statement of Christ:—“As the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself” (John 5:26).
Christ, therefore, though now possessed of inherent life, had been invested with it; it is not in this case underived. It is only the Great Uncreate, the Father, that can say, “I am, and there is none else beside me.” Yet, though Christ’s is not an underived existence, it is more directly divine than the human. A man is an embodiment of his father’s mortal life-energy. Jesus was not born of the will of the flesh, but of God. He was begotten of Mary through the power of the spirit. This was the origin of his title, “the Son of God.” See the angel’s words to Mary:—“Therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35).
But, though Son of God, he was flesh and blood. “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of THE SAME.… He took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren” (Heb. 2:14, 16, 17). He was made sin for us, who knew no sin (II Cor. 5:21). As he was in character sinless, this could only apply to his bodily constitution, which, through Mary, was the sin-nature of Adam. As Paul says elsewhere (Rom. 8:3), “God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.” “He was sent forth made of a woman” (Gal. 4:4), “of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Rom. 1:3). Jesus was “a man approved of God by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him (after his thirty years’ preparation) in the midst of Israel” (Acts 2:22). This is Peter’s description of him. Paul speaks of him as “the man Christ Jesus” (I Tim. 2:5). He was tried and disciplined as Adam was, but succeeded where Adam failed. “Though he were a son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered” (Heb. 5:8). This precludes the idea of his being “very God.” He was the Son of God, the manifestation of God by spirit-power, but not God himself. “The life was manifested, ” says John, “and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested unto us” (I John 1:2).
Again, in his gospel narrative (chapter 1:14), he says:—“The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth,” from which it is evident that Christ was a divine manifestation—an embodiment of Deity in flesh—Emmanuel, God with us. “God giveth not the spirit by measure unto him,” says the same apostle (chapter 3:34). The spirit descended upon him in bodily shape at his baptism in the Jordan, and took possession of him. This was the anointing which constituted him Christ (or the anointed), and which gave him the superhuman powers of which he showed himself possessed. This is clear from the words of Peter, in his address to the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius—(Acts 10:38)—“God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power; who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed.”
This statement alone is sufficient to disprove the popular view of Christ’s essential Godhead. If he were “very God” in his character as Son, why was it necessary he should be “anointed” with spirit and power? He did no miracles before his anointing. He had no power of himself. This is his own declaration: “I can of mine own self do nothing” (John 5:30). “The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works” (John 14:10). On Calvary, left to the utter helplessness of his own humanity, he felt the anguish of the hour and cried out, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matt. 27:46). Before his anointing, he was simply the “body prepared” for the divine manifestation that was to take place through him. The preparation of this body commenced with the Spirit’s action on Mary, and concluded when Jesus, being thirty years of age, stood approved in the perfection of a sinless and mature character. After the Spirit’s descent upon him, he was the full manifestation of God in the flesh. The Father, by the Spirit, tabernacled in Christ among men. “God was in Christ,” says Paul, “reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them.”
When raised from the dead and glorified, he was exalted to “all power in heaven and earth ”; his human nature was swallowed up in the divine; the flesh changed to spirit. Hence, as he now exists, “In him dwelleth all the fulness of the God-head bodily” (Col. 2:9). He is now the corporealisation of life-spirit as it exists in the Deity. But this change from what he was “in the days of his flesh” has not obliterated a single line of his human recollections. This is evident from Paul’s words in reference to his priestlyfunction: “We have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities” (Heb. 4:15). This can only be on the principle that Jesus retains a memory of the infirmity with which he himself was encompassed in the day of his flesh career upon earth.
When Jesus said, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father,” he did not contradict the statement that “no man hath seen God at any time,” but simply expressed the truth contained in the following words of Paul:—Christ is “the image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15); “the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person” (Heb. 1:3). Those who looked upon the anointed Jesus, beheld a representation of the Deity accessible to human vision.
Jesus declares things of himself which are held to sanction the idea that he existed as a person before his birth of Mary; such as that “he came down from heaven to give life to the world” (John 6:33); that “he proceeded forth and came from the Father” (John 8:42; 16:28); that he had “power to lay down his life and power to take it again” (John 10:18); that he “had glory with the Father before the world was,” and was “loved of Him before the foundation of the world” (John 17:5–24), etc.
It is evident, however, that we must understand these expressions in the light of the undoubted facts of Christ’s life and mission. These literal facts are that he was begotten of the Holy Spirit, and born a baby at Bethlehem (Luke 1:35; 2:5–7); grew up to be a man, increasing in wisdom with years, stature, and experience (Luke 2:52); remained the private and undistinguished son of Joseph the carpenter, until the power of the Spirit was shed upon him at his baptism (Luke 3:21–23): AFTER WHICH, he did the works and spoke the words recorded; that he was put to death through weakness (II Cor. 13:4); was deserted of the power of the Father when suspended on the cross; and that he was afterwards raised from the dead by the Father (Acts 2:24, 32; 3:15; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30, 37, and so on).
With these facts in view, we are enabled to attach the proper sense to statements which, in a naked and detached form, would appear to teach a personal pre-existence. For instance, when Jesus said to the Pharisees that he came down from heaven, he could not mean that the person standing before them had bodily descended from the clouds, as his words, literally understood, would have taught, and as the Pharisees appeared to have understood; he meant to say that his origin was from heaven. The “Holy Spirit” that came upon Mary—the “Power of the Highest” that overshadowed her, came down from heaven; consequently, the resultant man could, without extravagance, say he came down from heaven. The sense was literal as applied to the Power of the Highest that produced “the man Christ Jesus”; both at the stage of his begettal and the stage of his anointing on the banks of the Jordan, when the Spirit descended in bodily form and abode upon him; but not literal as applied to the man Christ Jesus.
When he said he proceeded forth and came from God, it was in the sense of these facts. He could not mean that as a person he had emanated from the very presence of the Almighty, but that the Father had sent him in the way disclosed in the record of his birth and baptism. John is described as “a man sent from God,” without meaning to suggest that John existed before he was born and sent.
When Jesus said he had power to take up his life after it should be laid down, he expressed the confidence that God would raise him. It was not power in the dynamic sense; but authority (εξονσια); he immediately adds, “This commandment HAVE I RECEIVED OF MY FATHER”; that is, the taking up of his life would result from the Father’s power and authority, exercised in accordance with the pledge given by the Father. Literally, Jesus did not take up his life; the Father raised him (see the references to Acts, three paragraphs back); but because it was the Father’s purpose, and because the Father spoke through Jesus (John 14:10), Jesus could appropriately say that he had power to raise up himself. An example of this style of language, in which what a person has a relation to in the divine purpose, is considered as under his control and referable to his power, occurs in Jer, 1:10:—
“See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant.”
Literally, the prophet did none of these things, but was overpowered and slain, as nearly all the servants of God were; yet the things he predicted came to pass, and this is taken as a sufficient basis for the highly-wrought language above quoted, which imputes the result of Jeremiah’s predictions to Jeremiah’s individual operations.
Christ’s statement that he had glory with the Father before the world was, must in the same way be understood in harmony with the elementary facts of the testimony. The glorification of Jesus was a purpose with the Father from the beginning: and, in this sense, he had glory with the Father before the world was. This may appear a strained explanation; but a regard to the scriptural habit of speech will justify it, in view of the testified facts of the case.
The Lord said to Jeremiah (chapter 1:5):—“Before I formed thee in the belly I KNEW THEE; and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I SANCTIFIED THEE: and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” Now Jeremiah did not exist before his conception. Yet these words would seem to teach it, if understood as those who believe in the pre-existence of Christ, understood the statements about him. As a purpose Jeremiah existed; his person was as clearly present to the divine mind as if he had stood before Him in actual fact. This is the explanation of words, which, rigidly construed, would imply Jeremiah’s pre-existence.
Look again at the words spoken of Cyrus, the Persian ruler, more than a hundred years before he was born (Isaiah 45:4):—“For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name; I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.” The same remark applies here: Cyrus was present to the divine contemplation as really as if he existed. Hence a style of language which would seem to assume his existence before he was born.
On the same principle, the purpose to raise a dead man is expressed by ignoring his death, and assuming his continued existence. Thus Jesus deduces the resurrection from the fact that God styled Himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, at a time when these men were dead. The Sadducees saw the force of the argument, and were silenced (Matt. 22:31–34). The principle of the argument is expressed in the words of Paul (Rein. 4:17)—“God who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not (but are to be) AS THOUGH THEY WERE.”
The words spoken of Jesus are of this order. When he said in prayer to the Father, “Thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world,” he did not teach that he existed from “he foundation of the world,” but that the Father regarded him with love from the beginning, and that, therefore, to the Father’s mind, he was present. In the words of Peter, “He was fore-ordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times.” (I Peter 1:20).
The same style of language is adopted with reference to Christ’s people: “He hath chosen US in him before the foundation of the world.” Literally, this would prove the existence of believers before the world began, for properly, a thing must exist to be the object of choice; actually, it only proves divine foresight. The glory which Jesus had before the world was, was the glory which God purposed for him from the beginning. Literally, he had not the glory referred to before the world was. What was the nature of that glory—the glory Jesus received in answer to this prayer? HE—the bodily Jesus—the body prepared —that which was evolved from the substance of Mary and made the subject of the anointing—was made incorruptible in substance, and the spirit shed upon that substance so abundantly, that it made him more luminous than the sun (Acts 26:13), and gave him power to bestow the spirit, and control providence in heaven and earth. Was Jesus possessed of this glory before he was born? Was he a body anointed with the spirit before he was the body prepared? Was he a real resurrected Jesus before Jesus of Nazareth was born in Bethlehem? Yet this was the glory he had with the Father before the world was. It was a glory he had in the Father’s purpose, but in no other sense.
In the same way are we to understand the words, “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58). This was Christ’s answer to the incredulity excited by his statement, “Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad.” The Jews thought he meant to insinuate that he was contemporary with Abraham, whereas he only meant to express the fact stated by Paul in the following words:—“These all (including Abraham—see verse 8) died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them AFAR OFF” (Heb. 11:13). It was this seeing of the promise of Christ “afar off” that made Abraham glad. It was the day presented in the promises that he saw, but, as they almost always did, the Jews mistook Jesus, and, as he was prone to do, he deepened their bewilderment by using another form of speech, which still more obscured his meaning, on the principle indicated in Matt. 13:11–15: a form of speech which in one phrase expressed two aspects of the truth concerning himself, viz., that he was purposed before Abraham existed, and that the Father, of whom he was then the manifestation, existed before all.
Jesus said, “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30). He could not mean, in view of all the testimony, what Trinitarians understand him to mean, that he and the Father were identically the same person (“the same in substance, equal in power and glory”), but that they were one in spirit-connection and design of operations. This is apparent from his prayer for his disciples, “That they may be one, EVEN as we are one.” The unity is not as to person, but as to nature and state of mind. This is the unity that exists between the Father and the Son, and the unity that will be ultimately established between the Father and His whole family, of whom Christ is the elder brother. When this unity is established, Christ will take a more subordinate position than he now occupies, in relation to the race of Adam. Paul says, “When all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto Him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all” (I Cor. 15:28).
Robert Roberts. (1984; 2002). Christendom Astray from the Bible (On The Nature Of Jesus Christ p154–165). Logos Publications. (Re-edited by the Belgian Christadelphians (2011)
Preceding articles: Jesus begotten Son of God #10 Coming down spirit or flesh seed of Eve
- Hashem השם, Hebrew for “the Name”
- God is one
- Creator of heaven and earth and everything aroundיהוה
- The wrong hero
- Only one God
- God of gods
- A god between many gods
- Gods salvation
- The Great Trinity debate
- The trinity – the truth
- Jesus was not God, Reasons that
- Preexistence in the Divine purpose and Trinity
- How do trinitarians equate divine nature
- A promise given in the Garden of Eden A covenant of grace or the covenant of redemption.
- Christ begotten through the power of the Holy Spirit
- Reasons that Jesus was not God
- 2 Corinthians 5:19 – God in Christ
- How the Coctrine of the Trinity came to the Church
- Why the trinity was accepted in Europe
- Christ begotten through the power of the Holy Spirit
- Nature of Preexistence in the New Testament
- Pre-existence of Christ
- The so-called “preexistence” of Jesus in John refers to his “existence” in the Plan of God.
- He has given us the Pneuma, the force, from Him
- Holy Spirit a Person
- The Spirit Of Jesus
- Word – John 1:1
- God has visited His people
- The radiance of God’s glory and the counsellor
- Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father
- The Naturalness of Jesus
- Mary, who was she & what was her role
- A “seed” for the blessing of all mankind would come through the family of Abraham
- The way of the wheat grain! & Oneness of this love
- Mission son of God perceived as failure
- Jesus spitting image of his father
- Jesus and his God
- One mediator
- One Mediator between God and man
- The true vine
- Promise of Comforter
- Promises, God’s
- Rabboni, Knowing —
- Ressurection of Jesus Christ
- Sacrifice, Expiatory
- True riches
- Yahushua, Yehoshua, Yeshua, Jehoshua of Jeshua
- Lord or Yahuwah, Yeshua or Yahushua
- Scriptures That Show That Jesus (Yahshua) Is Not Yahweh (Jehovah)
- Yeshua a man with a special personality
- Jesus as fully human
- Da Vinci Code: Was Jesus Human or Divine?
- Good-News Jesus among the partisans Jesus was the son of “The Father” in the fullest sense as he said on numerous occasions.
- Clean Flesh #2 Purity of Jesus
- Who is Jesus Christ?Biblical Unitarians do write:The Bible is the Word of God. It tells us about the life and death — and resurrected life — of the greatest man who ever lived. His name is Jesus Christ. For centuries men have debated the identity of this unique man. Was he God? Was he a “mere” man? How did he do the things he did?We assert that the answers lie in the Bible. If so, the question is: “What does the Bible say?”
- Who is Jesus #1 Introduction
- Who is Jesus #2 Jesus Christ, man who died
- Who is Jesus #4 Clear statements that our heavenly Father is his “God”
- Who is Jesus #6 Jesus prays to God
- Who is Jesus #7 Also. Trust in God; trust also in me
- Who is Jesus #8 Father greater than Jesus
- Who is Jesus #9 100% or not
- Who is Jesus #10 Jesus was tempted in every way
- Who is Jesus #12 Conclusion
- Reason to believe: did Jesus of Nazareth really died on the cross and rose again
- Why did Jesus have to die
- Jesus Christ, His Sacrifice
- How people see Jesus placed in history
- A Jewish Theocracy
2012 September update:
- Early Trinitarianism (leithart.com)
Building on the work of Robert Jenson and especially JND Kelly, Jason Vickers argues in Invocation and Assent: The Making and the Remaking of Trinitarian Theology that the proto-creedal affirmations of Trinitarian theology that are found in the various “rules of faith” specifically aim to undergird confidence in the efficacy of the rites and liturgies of the church for salvation. They are not simply “summaries of Scripture” (they leave out Israel entirely) nor simply doctrinal identity markers. Rather, they identify the name of the God who saves so that He may be invoked in praise and worship.
- The God Of The Scriptures (aparticularbaptistblog.wordpress.com)
The chief trouble is that so much that passes for faith today is really only maudlin sentimentality. The faith of Christendom in this twentieth century is mere credulity, and the “god” of many of our churches is not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, but a mere figment of the imagination.
- Who God says I am (davidmuia.wordpress.com)