Yahweh is One.

Post resurrection, Jesus appeared to a doubting Thomas, and after seeing and touching the glorified Messiah himself, he believed and "said unto him, My Lord and my God." (John 20:28) There are two possibilities here. The first one I'll propound would be the most obvious interpretation surface-wise, though not necessarily the most feasible of the two ultimately, since both would make perfectly beautiful sense. Jesus was simply able to bear the title "God" in his role as Chief agent of the Most High and one with more authority over others than anyone else in the world has with the exception of the one who gave it to him. Many are right in saying Jesus was (a mighty) God because he was and still is the most powerful revealer and emissary of God. He is the "greater Moses", who is also called God. (Ex. 7:1. 14) Powerful men representing Yahweh are sometimes called God. If His spirit is upon them then they are "God with us," doing His will and...

"Without a doubt, misunderstanding these verses at the beginning of the gospel of John has done more to further the cause of Trinitarian orthodoxy than misunderstanding any other section of Scripture. Whenever we challenge the traditional understanding of God and Christ, the first three verses of John’s prologue are invariably and almost immediately brought to the forefront of the discussion. Thus, it behooves us as workmen of God’s Word to thoroughly consider them."~~(Schoenheit, John W.; Graeser, Mark H.; Lynn, John A.. One God & One Lord: Reconsidering the Cornerstone of the Christian Faith (p. 205). Spirit & Truth Fellowship International. Kindle Edition.) And as Kegan Chandler notes: "Interestingly, we find that misunderstanding Jesus is actually a major theme of the Gospel of John.  Episodes involving his audience’s misinterpretation of his sayings occur in at least fifteen out of the twenty-one chapters.  Might contemporary audiences be missing his int...

1. "These things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual." (1 Corithians 2:10-13) Trinitarians use the fact that the Holy Spirit can know something as proof it's a person. But these texts say that our spirits likewise "know us." Is God's holy spirit not compared to ours within these passages quite readily? Are our "knowing" spirits separate persons within our "very beings" simply because they're personifiable? If not, how could you possi...

"Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. ("taking on the likeness of humanity" from the Christian Standard Bible is a better less bias translation here) And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." (Philippians 2:5-8) Traditionally, most Christians have misunderstood these beautiful verses and readily assumed the humiliation in view is God becoming a man, BUT is that the author's context and intent? These inspiring Philippians texts call to mind a few correlating passages that can help us reach a proper interpretation. "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich...

When I hear modern day trinitarian debaters describe their dogma (I accidentally first wrote this word as "fogma", which is really kind of accurate, but I digress) with particular and peculiar language foreign to scripture, I immediately recognize that they're speaking from incessant indoctrination instead of simple and sacred revelation. I wonder how they would have described God and with what terminology were they not handed certain sets of words and philosophies. I would venture to hypothesize that they could not have in their wildest imaginations come up with the proposal, much less the acceptance, that God is a triune homoousios consisting of three coequal and consubstantial persons. How could one imagine such a thing given Jesus's consistent and prevailing declarations of being ignorant about the day and hour, having to grow in knowledge, being utterly reliant upon someone greater, etc.? They've been handed something from men who aren't Jesus, and hence ...