Two Different Unitarian Doctrines
March 28th, 2010 by Brian Keating
As I mentioned in my last two posts, there are very few groups that have “Unitarian” beliefs - that is, the belief that only one person - our Heavenly Father - is Almighty God. (Almost all denominations state that God exists as “three persons in one Godhead”.)
Among the few groups that do have Unitarian beliefs, there are two main doctrines about who Jesus, himself, actually is. Those doctrines are called the “Biblical Unitarian” doctrine, and the “Arian” doctrine.
According to the Biblical Unitarian doctrine, Jesus did not personally exist, until he was conceived in Mary’s womb. In other words, Jesus did not have any pre-human existence - just like we did not have any pre-human existence. However, God had Jesus “in mind”, from the beginning of creation. In other words, Jesus was part of God’s plan of salvation, even before the earth was formed.
According to the Arian doctrine, Jesus is the very first being that God created. In other words, God created Jesus, before anything else in the universe existed. As a result, Jesus did personally exist - as a spirit being - long before he was born on the earth. Also, according to this doctrine, Jesus actually created the universe - i.e., after God created Jesus, then Jesus created everything else (under God’s direction.)
There are a number of verses that can be used, to support both of the above doctrines. So, in this post, I’d like to provide an overview of the two main “issues” involved, in trying to determine which of those doctrines is closer to the truth.
1. The “translation” issue:
First off, as we all know, the Bible was not originally written in English - it was written in other languages, and then translated into English. As a result, it is absolutely essential that the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words from Scripture be translated accurately, in order for English speakers to be able to obtain a proper understanding of Scripture.
There are a number of verses that can be translated multiple ways into English - and some of those verses have a profound impact on our understanding of who Jesus is. Here are the two most important verses that I have found, with regard to this issue:
John 1:1 (ESV):
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The Greek word which is translated as “Word” is logos. Biblical Unitarians believe that logos is better translated as God’s “will”, or “plan”. In other words, logos represents what God wants to happen. Arians believe that logos refers to God’s “master worker”. That is, logos represents the pre-human Jesus, existing as a spirit being.
Colossians 1:15 (ESV):
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
The Greek word which is translated as “firstborn” is prototokos. That Greek word has two completely different (and valid) meanings: first in time, and first in rank. Biblical Unitarians believe that in this verse, prototokos should be translated as “first in rank” - i.e., Jesus has been given the highest level of authority in all of creation. Arians believe that in this verse, prototokos should be translated as “first in time” - that is, Jesus was the very first being - chronologically - to be created.
2. The “literal vs. figurative” issue:
Many of the verses in the Bible are definitely literal; whereas others are obviously figurative. In other words, in some verses, we must follow Scripture “to the letter”, while in other verses, we should just take Scripture as “object lessons”. Here are two examples - one literal, and one figurative:
Deuteronomy 6:4 (ESV):
4“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.
Matthew 5:29 (ESV):
29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.
The first verse, above, is definitely literal - while the second verse is certainly figurative. In those verses, this is quite obvious. However, in many cases, it is not so obvious which verses are literal, and which are figurative.
This issue has an enormous impact on learning who Jesus is. In my view, our entire understanding of who Jesus is depends upon which verses we take as literal, and which we take as figurative!
Here are some of the most important verses, with regard to this “literal vs figurative” issue. These verses are arranged into two “groups”:
Group 1:
2 Samuel 7:12 (ESV):
12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom.
Luke 1:30-31 (ESV):
30And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.
1 Peter 1:20 (ESV):
20He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you
Isaiah 44:24 (ESV):
24Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer,
who formed you from the womb:
“I am the LORD, who made all things,
who alone stretched out the heavens,
who spread out the earth by myself,
Group 2:
John 17:5 (ESV):
5And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
Philippians 2:5-7 (ESV):
5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
John 3:13 (ESV):
13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.
1 Corinthians 15:47 (ESV):
47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.
The verses in the above two groups greatly affect my understanding of who Jesus is. Basically, if we take the verses in group 1 as literal, and the verses in group 2 as figurative, then we would arrive at a Biblical Unitarian understanding of Jesus. However, if we take group 1 as figurative, and group 2 as literal, then we would come to an Arian understanding of Jesus.
I myself wrestled with the issue of “who Jesus is” for a long time; but a few years ago, I finally arrived at a Biblical Unitarian understanding of Jesus. (Of course, I could be wrong…) I would be very interested to hear what any of you have to say on this issue!
I would like to thank Patrick Navas for his very thought-provoking information on this subject - the whole “literal vs. figurative” issue that I describe above was inspired by a huge pdf document that he wrote!
Hi Brian
Thanks for another thought provoking question! Please could you post a link to Patrick Navas’s article (if possible), thanks.
When I was a JW, I am ashamed to say that I accepted the Arian version without question. During my studies, before my conversion, I was shown (and accepted as “Gospel”) most, if not all, of the scriptures you have listed as group 2. After I had left the JW’s, I started to question EVERYTHING I believed before, and so arrived at the question of pre-existence. I found myself very much in two minds about it, and I think you have laid it all out very well above. What finally convinced me that Arianism was wrong, was Anthony Buzzard’s reasoning, which boils down to the fact that if Jesus was not 100% human, then his death and resurrection were a sham. Further to that, it just make such perfect good sense. Why would our Heavenly Father want to complicate such a direct fulfillment of Jesus’s conception and birth, by having to “translate” him from some other being into a human?
Fiona
Brian, great article!
I wonder if the article you refer to is not the one I’ve also read. Is it Exploring the Question of “pre-human existence”
Reflections on Problems and Issues of Scriptural Interpretation
in Reference to the Son of God?
Well presented indeed. I used to be very comfortable with pre-existence Christology myself - mainly because it made sense in a way, and it went unchallenged. I had to reconsider what I believed in. It definitely changed my mind on the issue.
I remember a debate between Sean Finnegan and Brant Bosserman, where Brant attempted to derail Sean’s argument on John1:1 by saying that many BU’s do believe in personal pre-existence of Christ. Fortunately believing in Jesus’ pre-existence does not automatically prove something like the trinity.
Another text we have to keep in mind is John 6:51
“I am the living bread that came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread he will live forever; and, for a fact, the bread that I shall give is my flesh in behalf of the life of the world.”
Literal/figurative issue indeed.
Jaco
From the way i see it neither is totally right or wrong. the power of the holy spirit and gift of the word in the flesh that Jesus received without measure at his baptism was the same the prophets before received with measure and did prexist. But the Man Jesus it rested upon did prexist the holy spirit and the gift of the word in the flesh but didnt prexist his own birth.
Brian,
a little bit of criticism is in order regarding your article. But first let me lay out where I’m coming from, just to make it clear I am not apologetically motivated, or taking the side of the “Arians”.
As I said before, I’m an ex-JW, I once believed - based on John and to a lesser extent Paul - that Jesus personally preexisted. I now believe that Jesus was an ordinary man in this matter, he was the natural son of his parents, just like anybody else.
That doesn’t mean though that I view John like you do. There is no doubt in my mind that John presents a high Christology, with a heavy emphasis on Jesus’ personal preexistence. For people who have no interest in apologetics, the truth of the previous statement is quite clear. Atheists, or agnostics, have no difficulty at all seeing preexistence in John. A person with no theological system at stake cannot translate “logos” as “plan” or “will”, simply because linguistically speaking, these do not translate the Greek word used by John.
I’m not sure it is obvious for you guys (and gals) that for the majority of the secular academia there is no doubt about Jesus being presented by John as having personally preexisted. You guys do not agree with this conclusion only because your own theological system forbids you, so you have to resort to sometimes ingenious theological artifices to bring John in line with the other three gospels. You need to harmonize John with the synoptic gospels because these other three have no pre-existence in them (the fact that there’s practically no preexistence in Luke for instance, is another fact that the majority of the secular academia agrees upon). So your reasoning is that because all four gospels are surely inspired by God himself, word for word, they all must carry the same message. It’s impossible for John to contradict the rest of the gospels, therefore you need to resort to counter-apologetics to explain John in the light of all other gospels.
What is not entirely surprising is that you haven’t considered that John’s gospel didn’t come out of the void, but was written in a certain philosophical and religious milieu. Has any of you considered, just for curiosity’s sake, to do some research into the Hellenistic concept of the Logos, and especially that variety associated with Hellenistic Judaism, of whose best known spokesman in the first century was Philo? If not, then I recommend for instance Segal’s book, “Two Powers in Heaven - Early Rabbinic reports about Christianity and Gnosticism”.
One has the opportunity to read here about what kind of ideas were floating around in Hellenistic (and non-Hellenistic) Judaism at that time, and here’s a brief description of what Philo espouses:
The Logos is “a God” (John 1:1?), “a second God”, the visible emanation (John 1:18?, 14:9?) of the High, Ever-Existing God, the image of God (Col 1:15?) Philo is clearly following the Greek philosophers here (see Wolfson, “Philo” I, ch. 4). Like them, he is reluctant to conceive of a pure, eternal God who participates directly in the affairs of the corruptible world. So he employs a system of mediation by which God is able to reach into the transient world, through the Logos, who is the sum total of all the forms of the intelligible word and equal to the mind of God (B. Unitarianism also associates the Logos with God’s mind).
Philo also speaks of the Logos as an “extradeical hypostasys of God”, as Segal puts it (that is, the Logos as a personification of God, separate from God). For Philo, the Logos is defined as the thinking faculty of God (Biblical Unitarianism again?), so the Logos can also easily be described by him as an incorporeal being (a spirit?), created for the purpose of carrying out His thoughts, having existence outside of God.
Furthermore, Philo identifies the angel of Ex 23:21 with the Logos (as JW’s do). Also, “Philo attests to a series of traditions involving the divinity of a principal angelic figure who functions as a helper of God” (JWs) In Philo, these traditions are related to the concept of the Logos, and Philo’s conception of creation. He maintains that the Logos was God’s partner in creation (John 1:3?). To this effect, he calls the Logos “the beginning” (Rev 3:14, “Beginning of the creation of God”?). He also talks about the Logos as God’s offspring, or as the first-born of God (I guess no biblical refs are needed here
), and a kind of heavenly man. The Logos is also the image of God (Col 1:16?)
This is the religious and philosophical atmosphere John’s gospel was born into. John did not invent the ideas about the Logos, they were preexistent (pun intended
). So knowing all this things, it’s kind of amusing to see all the efforts of pacifying John, to make him a well-behaving Biblical Unitarian.
Now about your “literal vs. figurative” dichotomy:
This is highly misleading. You paint a picture favourable to you, by presenting the “Arian” version as taking group 1 as figurative, and group 2 as literal. The doctrinally opposed usually distort what their opponents are saying, and unfortunately you are no different. This is a misrepresentation of what the other party is saying (straw man, anybody? I know somebody very fond of pointing out different “fallacies”, but for some reason I’m not seeing him calling out this one
). JW’s will never take 2 Samuel 7:12, Luke 1:30-31, 1 Peter 1:20 and Isaiah 44:24 figuratively. That would be indeed preposterous, and so you paint a picture where BU has a natural take and is right, whereas “Arians” are surely wrong. How can anybody with common sense take those verses as figurative? Bad boy 
(a quick note: for Isaiah 44:24, they will point out that the BUs are taking it out of context: as the context shows, God is speaking against the false gods of the nations, and the idols they create and worship; none of these false gods have been with Jehovah at creation)
In short, Jehovah’s Witnesses take those verses literally, and believe the first three ones rightly apply the the man Jesus Christ.
Oh, and btw, I have to emphasize again (as I did in the past) that this labelling of the JW’s as “Arians” is quite inaccurate. Please do some more research on what Arians actually believed, and you’ll see that unlike them, JWs do not worship Jesus, something which was an integral part of the Arian doctrine. You can’t equate the two groups just because of one commonality (otherwise you are also trinitarians, because they share your belief that Jesus was human). I also see this as a demeaning. “Arian” has negative connotations. I remember one article here entitled “When the Arians came knocking on my door”. It serves the purpose of labelling the JWs as heretics, whereas you are “Biblical Unitarians” - the orthodox ones, that is. That is my perception anyway, and I can guarantee you this is how any JWs sees it, if they read what you’re writing.
Fiona,
This is another straw-man fallacy BU’s employ in their arguments. The JW believe Jesus was 100% human (ever read their book, “The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived”?), and his preexistence does not alter in any way that fact. He became human, 100%. BU’s are quick to point out that somebody who “becomes” human cannot be human, since that is not something that characterizes humans. To that a JW would reply that Jesus was born of a virgin, plus he was sinless, and that is not something that characterizes humans - does that make him less human?
I certainly empathize with our South African friends here, Fiona and Jaco, for changing their beliefs about preexistence. Having left the JW, they feel the need of fellowship, they need to belong. No man (or female) is an island, and I know Jaco was seeking arduously BUs in SA (BU being probably the closest theological relatives of JWs). So they long for acceptance among their BU friends. It’s kind of like peer-pressure, you want to fit in, be accepted, be regarded as fellow unitarians. But a “preexistence” unitarian is, hmmm, like an odd-ball in BU circles, and will never be seen as a “real” BU. So it’s understandable. It’s human nature, and it’s ok.
But that’s just my opinion, feel free to disagree. I’m not here to win arguments, neither to score theological points.
John
I have read Philo and found it interesting that the concept of the trinity existed long before John and understand how the misunderstanding of the persons of God began.
Thru out the OT many thing are personified Just as Gods Word was personified as the only begotten son and the holy spirit receiving a feminine personification as Mother. I do see this effect in John when desrcibing the Word.
But i still see very clearly when the Word was made flesh in the 30 year old man named Jesus.
I see the Word completely as prexistant from creation and see it manifest itself over and over again in the prophets but not without measure like it was manifested in the MAN Jesus.
John Gospel first mention of the man Jesus is at his baptism not birth
Aaaaah….
Ooooooh….
Shame…oh, dear. Fiona and I will speak for ourselves as to why we believe as we do, ok? Stick to what you think you’re good at…psychology is not one of them. And where it comes to motivations for doing stuff, mind your own business.
Hi All,
FYI - I have posted Patrick Navas’ excellent pdf doc on my website. That document goes into great detail about the types of verses that I listed in “group 2″ of my post. A link to that document can be found here:
http://ncbf.homestead.com/Pre-Human_Existence.pdf
Note that in addition to being an expert on this subject, Patrick is also a great proponent of the idea that Unitarians should show tolerance on this issue - i.e., that Biblical Unitarians and Arians should be able to fellowship with each other. I agree with that sentiment.
Brian
Check out the following quotes taken from a book published in 1992 entitled, “Born Before All Time: The Dispute over Christ’s Origin.” The author of this exegetical work is the German Catholic scholar Karl-Josef Kuschel.
http://adonimessiah.blogspot.com/2006/08/quotes-from-karl-josef-kuschels-born.html
Jaco
Oh wow, looks like I touched a nerve
Spoke like a true Christian Jaco, that’s the spirit bro!
Well, John, your beliefs are as volatile as the stock markets. How convenient to rant and rave against the beliefs of others while being too spineless to to present a better model to follow. Instead, you insult and provoke. I see no reason why you continue to post here. You’re obviously a cynical atheist in the making. Instead of having anything meaningful to provide, you disrupt and demean the beliefs of others. You won’t be the one telling me what I believe, and why I believe it, understood? Go try your terrorist tactics and your luck somewhere else.
Typical…
Jaco
JohnE,
Was your last comment sarcastic? It is so hard to tell with electronic media. Also, if it was meant to be sarcastic, does that mean that you are not a Christian? Just curious. Also, please do not intentionally provoke others, this is not helpful.
Jaco,
Settle down friend. You could make your point without attacking JohnE. We cannot allow ourselves to compromise our Christian ethic especially when in verbal combat.
Hi Sean,
My past comment was indeed sarcatic, and I apologize for that; not to offer any excuses, but Jaco’s hostile response provoked the sarcasm.
I didn’t try to provoke anybody. It’s not really important to me what Jaco or Fiona believe and why they believe so, it’s certainly their business. But I felt free to comment on them since they themselves have brought up the subject of their personal belief on preexistence and their reasons, on a public forum. So I think I can comment on that.
As anybody can see, my post was civilized. When I said I empathized with Fiona and Jaco I meant it. In return I got from Jaco a hostile response, complete with ooooooh and aaaaaah interjections. That’s why I said I touched a nerve, and judging by his response I indeed touched one, which just shows I was right in my observations about Jaco’s motives of change - again, not that they matter a whole lot.
I wasn’t conjecturing, since I and Jaco have discussed some things previously, and he knows this. He wanted to associate with Unitarians but they were hard to find in SA, and I said I personally couldn’t associate with them because they “have strong biases against teachings Jesus laid out clearly in the NT, like his pre-existence. Or the fact that he has become a spirit, and is not a man anymore. It seems they are quite adept in finding out all kind of reasons to come up with ways to circumvent clear teachings exposed in the Bible - at least clear to me.”
And he replied “Yea, about unitarianism, you’re right. Then, I’d like to think of the “Christian Witnesses of Jah”. That seemed a bit disingenious at that time, since he already knew what you believed about preexistence before me telling him that, but I didn’t say anything. He also said earlier (about the spiritual resurrection debate here on this blog) in his characteristic style some rather unflattering things about the Unitarians, that are better left unrepeated here. So I know what I’m talking about. He also knows that “Arian” Unitarians are not exactly considered by BUs as their own, and this probably helped him reconsider his position on preexistence. I can understand that, he obviously wants to belong somewhere, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
What is instead wrong, is his aggresive attack against me. From various interjections to saying I am ”spineless” , “a cynical atheist in the making” using “terrorist tactics” and that I should just go away (no such luck
). I can’t say I’m surprised, after all, this is his style. But compared to you Jaco, I was well behaved. You are very bad example for Christians, and you probably know it. You also know I don’t have to provide you with any better model of a belief system to follow. If you don’t have an adequate one, that’s your problem.
I just read this thread, and to say I can relate to both sides of this debate, I don’t believe in a pre-existence, I do not totally accept the virgin birth. I don’t believe that someone to be sinless (within their will) must be born of a virgin. I think that if God is with someone then anything is possible.
The main point is, are these really issues that will determine our salvation? Shouldn’t we keep our minds liken unto a child? The Tanach is what we should be looking at. The book of John is child’s and what davar (logos) really means is child’s play. We should be holding the candle of the Tanach to every word of the letters given to us in the NT. This is how we can determine truth, through the scriptures that our Messiah verified and solidified.
Thoughts?
Joseph
Unless you believe in the NT scriptures on par with those of the Hebrew Bible, this debate is for naught.
But if we do believe in the authority and divine inspiration of the NT scriptures then we must really think about what the writers teach concerning the importance of believing that “Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God and by continuing to believe this you may have life in his name” [Jn 20.31; cp. Mat 16.16].
As long as we understand the titles of “Messiah, Son of Man, Son of God” in their biblical context as defining a human being and not some “demigod”.
Jesus existed in the form of God prior to his physical birth, one form being just as real as the other. The physical body has a form, a shape, a type, a substance, a kind. The same can be said of the spiritual. That which is born of the spirit is spirit.
God being spirit can show himself in any form, shape, size, type, or substance he chooses, according to his own perfect, pure, just, fair, good, kind, merciful, and wise will. Because he is spirit, he can also keep himself hidden from the eyes of men.
It’s been said that angels are all around us though we usually do not see them. They do indeed exist.
We can say that spirit has no form, shape, size, or color, but let’s remember that spirit can be made manifest and be seen to have form, shape, size, and color, just as a fire in a burning bush can look just like natural fire, yet burn without consuming the bush.
Scripture is quite clear as to the fact that Jesus existed with God from the beginning. It’s not something that can not be believed to
be in truth, fact, and actual.
Jesus in the form of God was with God from eternity. It’s not a difficult concept to grasp.
Hi, there
Nice try, but I don’t think so. You don’t even know Fiona (for crying out loud!) You don’t even know her motives for believing the way she does. You simply assume her motives based on your disingenious assumption of mine. Our exchange wherein I expressed my unease with BU teachings took place a year ago…your ‘evidence’ expired, pal. I’d be regarded an imbecile if I were to judge your current beliefs on what you believed a year ago. You clearly have not had a look at my posts the past several months. Therein you’d most definitely see what I believe and why I believe it. So, was that also Kermit Zarley’s motive for becoming a BU? He stated that preexistence christology was the last of his beliefs he had to change. So, did he “obiously” long for a place to belong, hence his change? Please. Your remark was rash and short-sighted; let alone highly inaccurate.
For the record, then, fellowship is most definitely not the motive for believing the way I do. If it were, I would have joined the Christadelphians, since there are several fellowships in South Africa, and (quite in line with my psychology training,) they do not believe in a personal Satan. Or I could have joined a local Torah-keeping monotheistic group in our city. I didn’t, so sorry, your premise for my believing the way I do does not hold - not logically nor factually. BTW, I believe in BU in spite of not being able to fellowship.
My reaction to your ad hominem attack was primarily due to its false and preposterous content presented with an appearance of sincerity…sorry, but the “hmmmmm” gave you away. My reaction can hardly be linked to the veracity of your statement - I really thought you were more capable than to commit such a slippery-slope fallacy.
If you are unhappy with what you read in the Bible, why don’t you phone Gary Habermas or Mike Licona? Tell them about your issues. You clearly do not believe anymore that the Bible is the inspired word of God. You do not believe in Jesus’ Messiahship, or in his resurrection either. You even have issues with the belief in God. So, what do you have to offer other than reasons for not believing these things? You are more certain of what not to believe than of what to believe. You don’t have a better model to provide, because you have none. Instead, you’re here to provoke and to insult. Your snide, followed by “smileys” only prove how frivolous you are. Your last several comments served no purpose other than to destabilise and to demean the beliefs and characters of persons, hence my highlighting the striking similarities to terrorist tactics.
So, call me unchristian. Your non-identity certainly puts you in a very convenient space to do so.
Sean, thanks for the encouragement.
Regards,
Jaco
Hi All,
I’d like to ask a favor of everyone - would it be possible for us to “tone down” the level of rhetoric on this post?
Just consider - what if an unbeliever, who is on the verge of following Jesus, sees this post? He may think to himself, “Christians are no better than the rest of the world - just look at the language they use with each other.”
Here is one of my favorite verses, which I think is relevant to this discussion:
1 Peter 3:9 (ESV):
Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing.
Brian
Brian,
Thank you for reminding us of this. Also, to add to 1 Peter 3.9 is 1 Peter 3.15-16 which says,
how we fight is just as important as what we fight for
JohnE and Jaco,
If you two would like to discuss each others motives for this and that, please do so on email. On this thread, please make an effort to stick to the topic at hand, which relates to pre-existence and/or christology in general.
On a side note, JohnE, would you be willing to write a blog post explaining the historic Arian position so as to clarify why you think the label is unsuitable for unitarians who believe in Christ’s pre-existence?
Hi Sean,
thank you for your advice. For anyone who might be interested, I’ve posted my response to Jaco here: http://johne2010.wordpress.com/2010/04/01/responsetojaco/
And thank you for your invitation to write an article on that. Although I didn’t think an entire article is in order, I can write one. Will send it to you, thanks.
Good day, friends,
Anyone who might be interested in my story of fully embracing Biblical Unitarianism firsthand, do drop me a mail!
talkingdonkey1981@gmail.com
Hope to hear from you.
Jaco
Ray
It would seem that in the above article that you take the 2nd group of verses as literal and the 1st group of verses as figurative. I do not share your point of view. Notice the first group of verses (which you take figuratively) contains 2 Old Testament verses in the group to confirm their authenticity (as being literal).
The second group of verses (which you take literally) all happen to come from the writings of just 2 people (Paul and John) and have no Old Testament verses to confirm their authenticity. Whenever the writings of Paul and John appear to contradict other scripture I dismiss Paul’s and John’s version of the story.
Therefore I cannot agree with you that we should just dismiss the 1st. group of verses as being figurative in their nature. I can understand why you might disagree with me, but I just wanted you to understand why it is I can’t agree with your interpretation of these verses. I think it would be best if we just agreed to disagree on this subject…
Thomas,
I don’t know which verses you say I take literal and which you say I take figurative so I can’t well comment on that.
By reading the first sentence of the article, I think I don’t well fit the definition of being a Unitarian, for though there is but one God and God the Father is that one God, who is the Lord God Almighty,
Jesus is as God is, hence it can be said that Jesus is also the Lord God Almighty, seeing as he is as God is.
Though I believe Jesus was with God from eternity, I don’t find myself confessing that Jesus was the first one that God created.
I do believe that God created all things through Christ who was with him at the time of creation. I believe he was with God and dwelling in him at that time.
I don’t consider myself a Trinitarian. I don’t like that doctrine. I don’t teach it to others as something they must accept and trust as so.
Ray
Ray you said, “I think I don’t well fit the definition of being a Unitarian, for though there is one God and God the Father is that one God, who is the Lord God Almighty, Jesus is as God is, hence it can be said that Jesus is also the Lord God Almighty, seeing as he is as God is.”
I also believe that Jesus is as God is in that he fully reflects God’s nature and goodness. Basically if you believe that God is a separate individual and not the same person as Jesus you are a Unitarian (at least that’s how I understand it). From listening to your beliefs I think it is very likely you are an Arian. There is nothing wrong with being an Arian it’s just that most people on this site would disagree with your beliefs.
I label myself as a Socinian because I believe everything that they believe. I just have some additional beliefs on top of that which most Socinians don’t appear to agree with. It is normal to have disagreements when interpreting scripture. The last I heard there were something like 30 thousand different Christian denominations.
You and I are lucky that we are accepted on this site. Most sites would probably not accept us because of our unusual beliefs.
Have a good Sunday and God Bless…