On Tuesday former Catholic Sinead O’ Connor announced her new name – Shuhada’ Davitt – and her conversion to Islam. The Twittersphere is buzzing with congratulations (from Muslims) and scorn (from everyone else.) But enough already with the scorn: she’s a public figure with a huge talent and a troubled mind (so often two sides of the same coin.) We should lament anyone abandoning their Christian faith, but more importantly ask what the pastoral issues are that need addressing? What does church need to learn from this?
- Not converted in the first place
In 2007 Sinead called herself a Christian, and that she believed in the Trinity. But her other remarks were more revealing:
“I think God saves everybody whether they want to be saved or not. So when we die, we’re all going home… I don’t think God judges anybody. He loves everybody equally.”[91]
The god she believed in was the same one lots of Christians say they believe in – the non-judgemental, all-saving god. This god may be an easier sell in today’s culture, but it’s not the God of the Bible.
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 1 John 3:16-17
The God of the Bible loves everyone equally in that He doesn’t want anyone to perish but all to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9); but He also teaches that those who don’t will be eternally lost (2 Thess 1:8-9.)
A disciple of Jesus has made a a conscious decision to leave their old life behind and follow him. They take Him at his word when He says no-one will see the Kingdom of God unless they are ‘born again’ (John 3:3, 2 Cor 5:17); they know that without Jesus they are as good as dead (Eph 2:1), that only through his broken body given for them on the Cross can they receive forgiveness and eternal life (John 6:53). They know that they can never earn his love, but receive it as a free gift of grace accessed by repentance and faith (Mark 1:15, Romans 10:10.) And they confess,with Peter,that there is ‘no-other Name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.’
You can go to church every Sunday your whole life and still not get this. Do we get it? Does the person next to us? Do we love them enough to explain it to them? Are we teaching it?
2. Lack of discipleship
Our decision to follow Christ is just the beginning. We’re called to “continue to work out [our ]salvation with fear and trembling.”(Phillipians 2:12) Will we meet with other believers to study the Bible, not giving up when we find it difficult or our church family annoying? Are we submitted to the authority of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16)? Are we committed to obeying Jesus commands (John 14:15) ? Are we witnessing to others (Matt 28:19)? Are we realistic with ourselves and with others about the cost of following Jesus (Luke 14:25-33)? Are we ready to be unpopular for Him, let alone suffer and die for Him (1 Thess 3:4)? And when we fail at all the above – which we will – do we have loving, accountable friendships with other believers, who will encourage us to keep going?
3. Neglected core doctrines
Sinead O’Connor once said:
“The Christ character tells us himself: you must only talk directly to the Father; you don’t need intermediaries..”
Actually, Jesus didn’t say that. He said “And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.” (John 14:13-14.) We pray to the Father in the Name of Jesus, whose blood has given us access to him. And it’s not idolatrous, because Jesus is God in the flesh. If our Christian friends refer approvingly to a ‘lack of intermediaries’ in this way, alarm bells should ring.
But if someone asked you to defend the divinity of Christ or the Trinity, how would you answer? When was the last time you heard a sermon on the Trinity? You might have heard some faithful, trinitarian exegesis on John 1, but how will that help you when a Jehovah’s Witness tries to persuade you that the Word, Jesus, isn’t YHWH himself but rather his exalted firstborn creation? Or when a Muslim tells you Jesus is no more than a Prophet?
There is a huge gulf between what Christians say they believe and what they actually understand. A recent study of stated that 78% of US evangelicals agree with the statement “Jesus is the first and greatest being created by God.” These are people who are hearing the Bible preached week in, week out. What has gone wrong?
Even in the mainstream evangelical church, we are in danger of preaching Jesus-lite: Jesus our Friend (mainly our friend) and Saviour, the One we know is God but we don’t know how or care to understand why this matters. And without taking the time to look into these things seriously, we are vulnerable to our faith being undermined by those with years of training on how to undermine it. And preaching, it seems, is not enough to equip us.
4. Disappointment with the church
Sinead O’Connor had a love/hate relationship with Catholicism. She famously tore up a photo of the Pope in 1992 in protest against the child abuse scandals, and later got ordained as a priest by an off-shoot of the Catholic Church. Her anger against the sex scandals never subsided – and why should it have? The Vatican still faces allegations of cover-up and dragging its feet over prosecuting the perpetrators . The Evangelical church has its own horrific incidents of abuse to face up to. It continues to be a grievous stain on the church and her witness.
But does anything in Christian Scripture condone such practices? Does Jesus? Because Christians don’t look to other Christians for advice about life, but by the only perfect man who ever lived and His inspired Word. Christians – all of us – will continually disappoint others with our weakness and laziness and hypocrisy. That’s why we don’t preach ourselves, but Christ crucified. And Islam has far more difficult issues with sexual abuse – read another post of ours on grooming gangs and how they are influenced by Islamic teachings here.
5. Failure to read the small print
Sinead said her conversion was “the natural conclusion of any intelligent theologian’s journey.” But an intelligent theologian looks before they leap, don’t they? If she had looked, she’d have noticed Allah’s punishment for leaving Islam is death (Sura 4:89), that Muhammad had sex with a 9 year old child (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236) that Muhammad ordered his enemies’ eyes to be branded and then made them die of thirst (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 261), that spreading Islam through violent jihad is commanded by Allah (Sura 9:29), that non-Muslims should pay a humiliation tax simply because of their disbelief (Sura 9:29), that music, her livelihood, is haram (Sahih Bukhari 7:69:494), and that if she so much as draws a picture of Muhammad, let alone rips it up, she is taking her life in her hands. But who around her could and should have told her all this? Answer: the church. Because Jesus loves her and died for her to know the truth.
Is this all just a publicity stunt? Is it a fad? Does it come from a place of desperation for acceptance and belonging? Where was the church when she was thinking this through? Sinead/Shuhada’ seems pretty determined to forge her own path in life. But we shouldn’t have made it easy for her.
To support the work of DCCI https://paypal.me/dcciministries0717
Find us on YouTube and Facebook.
Jesus makes the heavenly council “one” with God in scriptural sense, by the reason of their good works. Jesus makes this Psalmic point (Psalms 82:6-8) as his response of refutation against the Jewish accusations of making himself a “god”.
Just as the recipients of Scriptures became “gods” after implementing the scriptural good works, Jesus could also be “divine” after doing the similar scriptural good works.
Jn 10
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
On difference of life and death:
Jesus can’t in ontological point be “one” with God if he were dead. Otherwise, If the son were one with the father, then both of them die: when the son dies, the father also can die.
But God is the living immortal God. Jesus dies. They can’t in ontological aspect be “one”.
How can the Son be one with the “immortal” Father if the son is dead?
Jn 10:18
No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
Jn 10:30
I and my Father are one.
On difference between way and destination.
If, in ontological sense, the way = destination, the way is redundant.
Jn 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
There’s no need to take Jesus as a Mediator, it becomes redundant if in ontological fact he is to be the same God.
If both the Son and the Father were identical in ontological manner, the people who can afford to know of Jesus directly, can also afford to know of the Father directly.
Otherwise, if the people are incapable of knowing the Father directly, actually they must not be either able to know of Jesus directly.
Court’s Decision Means Insulting Muhammad Now a Crime.
Let me explain this Moderate solution of Shari’ah: If you encourage paedophilia in the West (by agreeing, acknowledging, and appealing to a minority misogynist versions of Hadith), then it is feared if the misogynist Moslems in the West would immediately get radicalised by reacting:
– Making so many Western European underage blondes the easy preys and perpetual victims of the paedophiles’ rings.
Similar to slavery, when the Islamophobes appeal to Hadith about the practice of slavery to be applied in the West, the first victims of slavery will be the Western men and women themselves, not the Arabs.
Now, Would the respectable Germans or Viennese or Austrians and other Westerners allow both paedophilia and slavery to take place in Europe thru “radicalisation” of Western Moslems? No, no, a big no.
By condemning the accusation on Prophet of conducting the paedophilia, actually the European High Court has saved a lot of the underage blondes from the wannabe radicals and existing paedophiles.
– Making a consistency: If the misogynist version of Prophet’s marriage were permitted, why don’t the Westerners further allow FGM, burqas, Honor killing, and especially the “most favorite” law of all: Hunting down and killing the blasphemers?
Consistency please?
Moderate version of Prophet marriage: The expression 6-9 y.o. is Arabic euphemism for post-pubescent woman for telling shyly: “I menstruated”.
Abi Dawud Book 42, Hadith 4915
Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin: The Messenger of Allah married me when I was seven or six. When we came to Medina, some women came. according to Bishr’s version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging. They took me, made me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Messenger of Allah, and he took up cohabitation with me when I was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter. Abu Dawud said: That is to say: I menstruated, and I was brought in a house, and there were some women of the Ansari in it. They said: With good luck and blessing.
It is not the Arab girls, but rather the Western underage blondes themselves, that would have been the victims of paedophilia of the radicalised misogynists if that perversion were “acknowledged” as a true religious practice in the West.
Sharia in Europe: Human Rights Court Adopts Islamic Blasphemy Laws
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2018/10/sharia-in-europe-human-rights-court.html
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) recently ruled that freedom of speech must be balanced with “protecting the religious feelings” of others. Hence, Europeans are no longer allowed to call Muhammad offensive names like “pedophile,” even though he had sex with a prepubescent nine-year-old girl named Aisha.
A speech that may radicalise the Western Moslems is not a Free Speech.
If a minority misogynist version of Hadith were “acknowledged” in the West as a true religious norm, the first victims of it will be the Westerners themselves (either men, women, underage girls), not the Arabs.
According to the Bible, there are two aspects of God: Universal (greater) and local (nationhood).
God of the Gentiles has the name “El-Yon” (God most High) who happens to be the more “higher” side above the name of “El-Shaddai” (God of Genesis till Abraham) and the later name of “YHVH” (God whose lot is the nation of founders of Judaism, started from Isaac and Jacob).
When God destroys Sodom, He uses two names: El-Yon (from heaven, globally) and El-Shaddai (bottom-up from local). But from the readings of Jewish locals, there are two names of same YHVH.
Dt 32
8 When God most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. 9 For the LORD’S portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.
Ps 82:1
A Psalm of Asaph. God most High standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
Reason of Qur’anic use of the word “We”:
Qur’an is a realistic Scripture. Not a fairy tale nor a mythology.
A consistent and important teaching of Monotheism should not be confused or messed so naively with a primitive fairy tale of incarnation.
God doesn’t walk directly, doesn’t talk directly, doesn’t act directly herein the world.
Islamic God is not an incarnation nor avatar.
God acts indirectly behind a veil. God uses the elemental power of natures (water, wind, light, fire, thunder, dusts, et cetera), supernatural angels, animals, and humans (Prophets and believers), also the guidance of the Scriptures, to accomplish whatever He wants in the world. That’s why Qur’an uses the plural “We” in a reasonable manner.
It is naive, silly, ridiculous and nonsensically out of reality if one believes that God acts alone in this world. Religion is not a myth.
Additionally, as a minor explanation from aspect of linguistics, it is too usual for the Semitic languages (such as Arabic and Hebrew) to use a plural word for a singular identity interchangeably, to make the emphasis of a higher Honor.
Jud 13
21 But the angel of the LORD did no more appear to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was an angel (Mal’ak, Singular) of the LORD. 22 And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God (Elohim, Plural).
Heaven councils have a “discussion” with God:
1Ki 22
19 And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.20 And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.
I think, there are 70 members of Heaven councils, they have wings and different faces (notably lion, ox, eagle, human, et cetera) in accordance to 70 Elders in Sinai, 70 Judges of Sanhedrin, and 70 preachers sent by Jesus, 70 preachers of the Pentecost, also 70 souls who migrate to Egypt with Jacob.
In the Book of Revelation, the Heaven councils are called “beasts” (Greek: Zoa).
Ezekiel has seen the cherubim (Hebrew: Kerubim) at Chebar river in Babylon.
Heaven councils pray with “new song”.
Ps 89:7
God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him.
Rev 19
4 And the four and twenty elders and the four beasts fell down and worshipped God that sat on the throne, saying, Amen; Alleluia.5 . And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great.
Ps 89:5
And the heavens shall praise thy wonders, O LORD: thy faithfulness also in the congregation of the saints.
Ps 149:1
Praise ye the LORD. Sing unto the LORD a new song, and his praise in the congregation of saints.
Rev 5:9
And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
Similarity between two stories in Job and 1 Kings: Heaven councils and Satan (a lying spirit).
Job 1:6
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
1Ki 22
19 And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.20 And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.21 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him.
The Heaven councils in the form of cherubim have similar work (reward and punishment) with that of the Angel of the Lord:
– Angel of Lord sanctifies the burnt offering with his staff, the cherubim hold the prayers of saints within a vial:
Angel of Lord:
Jud 6:21
Then the angel of the LORD put forth the end of the staff that was in his hand, and touched the flesh and the unleavened cakes; and there rose up fire out of the rock, and consumed the flesh and the unleavened cakes. Then the angel of the LORD departed out of his sight.
Cherubim:
Rev 5:8
And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.
– Punishment:
Ezek 10
6 And it came to pass, that when he had commanded the man clothed with linen, saying, Take fire from between the wheels, from between the cherubims; then he went in, and stood beside the wheels.7 And one cherub stretched forth his hand from between the cherubims unto the fire that was between the cherubims, and took thereof, and put it into the hands of him that was clothed with linen: who took it, and went out.
Rev 15:7
And one of the four beasts gave unto the seven angels seven golden vials full of the wrath of God, who liveth for ever and ever.
Certes, la religion acceptée d’Allah, c’est
l’islam.
According to Justin Martyr, there’s a missing verse written by supposed Moses who has allegedly predicted a weird way how Jesus will overshadow his own mother Mary, hence as a baby he will cause his mother to conceive himself:
1 Apology 33.
For if she had had intercourse with any one whatever, she was no longer a virgin; but the power of God having come upon the virgin, overshadowed her, and caused her while yet a virgin to conceive……It is wrong, therefore, to understand the Spirit and the power of God as *anything else than* the Word, who is also the first-born of God, as the foresaid prophet Moses declared; and it was this which, when it came upon the virgin and *overshadowed her*, caused her to conceive, not by intercourse, but by power.
Justin Martyr believes in a deification of flesh and blood in Jesus’ human body:
1 Apology 33.
And what is spoken of as the blood of the grape, signifies that He who should appear would have blood, though not of the seed of man, but of the power of God. And the first power after God the Father and Lord of all is the Word, who is also the Son; and of Him we will, in what follows, relate how He took flesh and became man. For as man did not make the blood of the vine, but God, so it was hereby intimated that the blood should not be of human seed, but of divine power, as we have said above.
Justin Martyr believes that the Eucharist is the act of eating the real flesh and drinking the real blood of Jesus:
1 Apology 66.
For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.
According to Justin Martyr, Jesus is “Another God”, hence he is a Subordinationist.
http://www.equip.org/article/jesus-as-god-in-the-second-century/
Any attempt to systematize Justin’s Logos Christology is a difficult (and frustrating) task;14 nevertheless, a strand of pronounced Subordinationism 15 seems to run through his Christology.
A “Subordinationist” text in which Justin explicitly refers to the Son as “God” is found in Dialogue 55–56: The Logos is “another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things”.
Justin asserts that the Logos is the “first power after God” (1 Apology 32), “numerically distinct” (Dialogue 56;62;128;129), and to be worshiped “in second place” (1 Apology 13).
The Second Apology relates, “For next to God, we worship and love the Word who is from the unbegotten and ineffable God, since also He became man for ourselves” (13.4).
Christ is God’s vs. idolatrous Christ is God
I am sure that the Bible readers and the Unitarians may have a difficulty to disprove John 1:1 (The Word is a god), but they can easily disprove a flawed theological statement of such a mythical Christ “Christ is God”, by simply showing two verses of the NT Bible: 1Cor 3:23 (Christ is God’s) and 1Cor 11:3.
1Cor 3:23.
And ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s.
1Cor 11:3
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
When saying “Jesus is God” or “Christ is God”, the Trinitarians commit the deadly sin of idolatry because either the name “Jesus” or that title “Christ” is a given name for a son of Man born in the flesh thru Mary, not for the Word.
Saying “Jesus is God” or “Christ is God” is as erroneous as saying “Man is God”.
Or, at least, it is a “heresy” of “Monophysitism” (humanity of Jesus is divine). Monophysitism asserted that in the person of Jesus Christ there was only one, divine nature only, rather than two natures.
The current mainstream teaching in the NT Bible is that “Christ is God’s” (Christ belongs to God, not Christ *is* God), whereas in the Trinitarianism there’s a mythical Christ “Christ is God”….That’s different.
Moreover, Paul affirms that the title “Christ” is something that is specifically resorted only for a man Jesus. Only man gets anointed by something created later as “anointment”. There’s no anointment available yet when the Word was with God.
1Tim 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Additionally, Justin Martyr differentiates God from the Christ, meaning that the Christ is not God, and God is not the Christ.
Justin Martyr.
Therefore these words testify explicitly that He [Jesus] is witnessed to by Him [the Father] who established these things, as deserving to be worshipped, as God and as Christ. (Dialogue with Trypho, 63. ANF, I:229)
In other verse, Christ can’t be God as long as every man can’t be Christ. Simple. Analogical comparison.
1Cor 11:3
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Belief “Christ is God” is such a mythical Christ invented by the idolaters outside of the NT Bible. Now everyone can understand how the pagans have easily inserted their idolatry right down into the Trinitarian main doctrine by deceitfully altering the obvious Bible’s writing: Biblical “Christ is God’s” is changed to be a non-biblical “Christ is God”.
Also I may add, you can ask and silence the Reformed’s Sola Scriptura folks and KJV Onlyists with a simple question: where is a statement “Christ is God” while you just have rather “Christ is God’s” in 1Cor 2:23?
The Trinity has been pwned just by ‘s. How easy it is.
Keep in your mind of several things you don’t have in the NT Bible (not even in KJV):
– There’s no such a thing as “Christ is God”.
– There’s no such a thing as “the Son of God is God”.
– There’s no such a thing as “The Word is the Son of God”.
– There’s no such a thing as “The Word is Christ”.
The early Trinitarians commit the same sinful idolatry or heresy of Monophysitism:
– Polycarp
And to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead. (Letter to the Philippians, 12:1)
– Justin Martyr.
Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts. (Dialogue with Trypho, ch, 36)
– Ignatius.
For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God’s plan, both from the seed of David and of the Holy Spirit. (Letter to the Ephesians, 18.2.)
– Melito of Sardis.
God put to death….because they slew God, who hung naked on the tree. (Melito, 5)
– Ireneaeus of Lyons
Christ Himself, therefore, together with the Father, is the God of the living, who spoke to Moses, and who was also manifested to the fathers. (Against Heresies, 4.5.2)
– Tertullian.
The only man who is without sin is Christ; for Christ is also God. (The Soul 41:3)
– Clement of Alexandria.
But, alas, ye are all so fearless, nay, unbelieving, that ye listen neither to the Lord, nor to holy Paul, though he prays you in Christ’s stead to taste and see that Christ is God. (Tracts for the Times, 16:2).
– Tatian the Assyrian.
We do not act as fools, O Greeks, nor utter idle tales when we announce that God was born in the form of man. (Address of Tatian to the Greek, 21)
– Novatian.
Scripture has as much described Jesus Christ to be man, as moreover it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. (Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity, 11)
– Origen.
That Jesus Christ Himself, who came, was born of the Father before all creatures; that, after He had been the servant of the Father in the creation of all things — For by Him were all things made — He in the last times, divesting Himself, became a man, and was incarnate although God….that it was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit: that this Jesus Christ was truly born. (De Principiis, Preface, 4)
– Hippolytus.
For Christ is the God above all, and He has arranged to wash away sin from human beings. (Elucidations, 30; Refutation of All Heresies 10:33,34).
– Cyprian of Carthage.
One who denies that Christ is God cannot become his temple. (Letters 73:12)
Heaven council can be interpreted loosely as the “Heavenly Judges” or principalities, whom God “consults” with, and whom God “assigns” the so-called “mandate of heaven” upon 70 earthy local nations with, and whose wisdom or knowledge of the good and the evil is derived from God’s word. Satan is one of the Judges (2 Cor 4:4).
That Judge’s wisdom includes Taqiyya (good lying).
Jer 13:18
Say unto the king and to the queen, Humble yourselves, sit down: for your principalities shall come down, even the crown of your glory.
One of Jesus’ duty is to make known the existence of Heavenly Judges from the sky:
Eph 3:10
To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
Concept of “mandate of heaven” is the oriental belief though.
2Chr 18
18 Again he said, Therefore hear the word of the LORD; I saw the LORD sitting upon his throne, and all the host of Heaven standing on his right hand and on his left.19 And the LORD said, Who shall entice Ahab king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one spake saying after this manner, and another saying after that manner.20 Then there came out a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will entice him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith?
Dt 32
8 When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.9 For the LORD’S portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.
Ps 82
1 A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods (Elohim).2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.6 . I have said, Ye are gods (Elohim); and all of you are children of the most High.7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
Judges are called “Elohim” for deciding even a smaller case of civil dispute:
Exo 22
8 If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges (Elohim), to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods. 9 For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges (Elohim) shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour.
Exo 21:6
Then his master shall bring him unto the judges (Elohim); he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
1 Sam 2:25
If one man sin against another, the judge (Elohim) shall judge him: but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall intreat for him? Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the LORD would slay them.
Solomon uses a Taqiyya:
1Ki 3
24 And the king said, Bring me a sword. And they brought a sword before the king.25 And the king said, Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other.26 Then spake the woman whose the living child was unto the king, for her bowels yearned upon her son, and she said, O my lord, give her the living child, and in no wise slay it. But the other said, Let it be neither mine nor thine, but divide it.27 Then the king answered and said, Give her the living child, and in no wise slay it: she is the mother thereof.28 And all Israel heard of the judgment which the king had judged; and they feared the king: for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him, to do judgment.
Psalms 110:1, who is “my Lord” whom David refer to? When will it be?
The Biblical data from Stephen (Acts 7:55) and John (Rev 5:6) showed a witness that is utterly unpleasant for the Trinitarians: that Jesus has *not* yet been sitting on a seat at the Right Hand of God. Jesus has just been standing (whereas 24 Elders sit).
Acts 7:55
But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus *standing* on the right hand of God,
Rev 5:6
And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, *stood* a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
Did David actually refer to 24 sitting Elders as the ones whom he called “my Lord”?
Rev 4:4
And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold.
Thus, when will the context of Psalms 110:1 be for Jesus? The answer is: It will happen at the 1,000 years Kingdom when Jesus and other saints will sit at same one throne, at the Right Hand of God:
Rev 3:21
To him that overcometh will I grant to *sit with me in my throne*, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
Rev 3:21 makes the amount of the occupants of Jesus’ throne at the Right Hand of God is not one person, but maybe 144,000 persons of the chosen saints, or maybe more.
What is the Word ?
Similar to the imaginary title of “Image” of God for Adam, a more figurative title “Word” of God is just something which is finite, relative, and tangible. 1John 1:1 declares that the “Word” was seen, looked on, heard, handled. Far more worse, Mary is able to contain that Word in her womb.
Is the Word actually a physical flesh with blood of Jesus? No. That’s a heresy of Monophysitism.
– If the Word were in a *same one co-equal nature* of his Father’s, why is it making sense for the nature of Word to die whereas his Father is immortal in the ever-living nature?
Jn 10:18
No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
Rom 5:10
For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son,
1Th 1:10
And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead,
– If the Word had had allegedly a *same one co-equal* divine nature with that of the Father, how could the Father be not approachable, not touchable, not seen, and not visible?
1Jn 1:1
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
Versus:
1Jn 1:5
This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
1Tim 6:16
Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.
1Tim 1:17
Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
The Trinitarians argue that the Father is as original source and the Word is his copy. Now, in fact, in the real world both “original” document and its “copy” are equally seen, accessible, tangible.
– Far more worse, the copy (the Son) can grow the sinews, bones, flesh, muscles, skin along with himself, whereas the original (the Father) can’t mingle with the world.
– The copy (the Son) can be contained by the woman’s flesh in her womb, whereas the original (the Father) can’t be contained by the woman.
– The copy (the Son) can re-enter – or illustratively “re-wear” again – a cold dead corpse after three days, whereas the original (the Father) can’t be contained by the corpse.
If both the Son and the Father were *identical* in ontological manner, the people who can afford to know of Jesus directly must also afford to know of the Father directly.
Otherwise, if the people are incapable of knowing the Father directly, actually they must not afford either to know of Jesus directly.
Several facts how the Book of Revelation refutes Jesus’ divinity:
– The Lamb just stands among 24 sitting Elders (Rev 5:6).
– The Lamb doesn’t cause the terrain split on the Mount Olivet during his descent (Rev 14:1).
– A throne where Jesus will sit during 1000-years Kingdom has many occupants (Rev 3:21).
– The rider of the clouds “like son of man” as Daniel prophesied is a “servant of angel”, as he takes the order from the angel (Rev 14:15-16), whereas the Lamb is still standing on the Mount Olivet per Rev 14:1.
– God will be the Last Judge who sits on the great white Throne based on the “works”, not on “Faith” (Rev 20:11-13) similar to 1Pet 1:17.
1Pet 1:17
And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear.
– Alpha Omega: Jesus is Alpha for the “first” and Omega for the “last” ones (Rev 1:11), but Jesus is *not* Alpha for the beginning and *not* Omega for the ending (Rev 1:8, Rev 21:6, Rev 22:13).
– Two Prophets: they also have the preexistence (Rev 11:3-4), they shall be slain, resurrected and ascended to Heaven (Rev 11:11-12).
– Original Gospel: true Gospel is one, not four, it is written by the angel, not only written in Greek, it is written in many tongues, and it can be read by every nations in the Last Days.
One of the most favorite verses of the Unitarians for Subordination:
Heb 1:3
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
– In order to uphold the world’s physicals, the Word needs to “touch”, be contained, and frame the creations from inside. Hence, Jesus is not a Transcendental God.
The Absolute Transcendental Father doesn’t breed a relative Son.
– In order to purge the world’s sins, the Word needs to get “himself” died. Hence, Jesus is not an ever-living God.
The ever-living Father doesn’t breed a dead Son.
– In order to be known by the world, the Word needs to be visible, audible, tangible, touchable, being clothed in the earthy vessel. Hence, Jesus is not the infinite person.
The infinite Father doesn’t breed a finite Son.
Thus, by getting placed “within” the creations and imposing the death upon himself, a “copy” is not the exact *identical twin* of the Origin, or a radiance is not the exact identical twin of the Source.
In other words, both Jesus and God are separated in the ontological sense, they are not conjoined in nature.
Even worse, Jesus’s work is not identical with God’s works. God created things from nothing (ex-nihilo), whereas Jesus never created a thing from nothing, he just repeated or duplicated the existing things.
Thus, in reality, both Jesus and God are different, their works are just *parallel* in a similar (not identical in qualitative values) functional action, by utility, by fashioning values, by exterior modes.
One of the most favorite verses of the Unitarians for Subordination: Carmen Christi.
Phil 2
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
– Philippians 2:6 refers to a unique Greek style in depicting a mortal, i.e. “God” as Adjective (not as Noun). Adjectives can’t rob the real nature of Noun.
Adjectives can’t be equal with Noun.
Adjectives is not Noun.
– Due to being a man servant, the Word needs to be obedient of the death as well. Hence, Jesus is not an ever-living God.
The ever-living Father doesn’t breed a dead Son.
– In order to be known by the world, the Word needs to be visible, audible, tangible, touchable, being fashioned in the earthy vessel, in likeness of men. Hence, Jesus is not the infinite person.
The infinite Father doesn’t breed a finite Son.
In other words, both Jesus and God are separated in the ontological sense, they are not conjoined in nature.
Even worse, Jesus’s work is not identical with God’s works. God created things from nothing (ex-nihilo), whereas Jesus never created a thing from nothing, he just repeated or duplicated the existing things.
Thus, in reality, both Jesus and God are different, their works are just *parallel* in a similar (not identical in qualitative values) functional action, by utility, by fashioning values, by exterior modes.
One of the most favorite verses of the Unitarians for Subordination: John 1:1.
Jn 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was god.
– John 1:1 refers to a unique Greek style in depicting the Word, i.e. “god” as Adjective (not as Noun).
Adjectives can’t rob the real nature of Noun.
Adjectives can’t be equal with Noun.
Adjective is not Noun.
In other words, both Jesus and God are separated in the ontological sense, they are not conjoined in nature.
Even worse, Jesus’s work is not identical with God’s works. God created things from nothing (ex-nihilo), whereas Jesus never created a thing from nothing, he just repeated or duplicated the existing things.
Thus, in reality, both Jesus and God are different, their works are just *parallel* in a similar (not identical in qualitative values) functional action, by utility, by fashioning values, by exterior modes.
One of the most favorite verses of the Unitarians for Anti-Trinitarianism: Doubting Thomas.
Jn 20:28
And Thomas answered and said unto him, the Lord of mine and the God of mine.
– John 20:28 makes Jesus “the” God in absolute sense, as Noun with definite article.
In the Trinity, Jesus can’t be “the” God in the doctrinal creed, meaning either he turns to be Oneness Pentecostal’s deity or Modalist deity.
– Moreover, with the rational arguments:
How can God be touchable by Thomas’ fingers?
How could God keep maintaining the deadly scars in his flesh?
Even worse, How could God been slain, pierced, dead for three days? Hence, Jesus is not an ever-living God.
The ever-living Father doesn’t breed a dead Son.
In other words, both Jesus and God are separated in the ontological sense, they are not conjoined in nature.
Even worse, Jesus’s work is not identical with God’s works. God created things from nothing (ex-nihilo), whereas Jesus never created a thing from nothing, he just repeated or duplicated the existing things.
Thus, in reality, both Jesus and God are different, their works are just *parallel* in a similar (not identical in qualitative values) functional action, by utility, by fashioning values, by exterior modes.
One of the most favorite verses of the Unitarians for Subordination:
Jn 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
How can the Son possibly “declare” the invisible Father if the Son himself were also invisible? Why would the unseen person (the Father) be represented by another unseen person (the Son)? No, That doesn’t make sense at all.
The only logical way of comparison to differentiate the invisible Father from his Son is, the Son must be visible.
Thus, the nature of the Father must be different from the nature of the Son.
Not only the contrasted appearance, there’s a physical difference in their works as well: Works of Jesus are visible, whereas the works of the Father are invisible. So, Jesus doesn’t simply mimic all invisible works of the Father, he also makes it visible.
Jn 5:19
Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
Jesus claims to the Jews that the Father works on thing, but of course nobody sees it. Jews certainly see Jesus’ works which he claims he mimicked from the unseen works of the Father.
Jn 5:17
But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
Why would the unseen works (of the Father) be represented by another unseen person (the Son)? No, That doesn’t make sense at all.
Thus, the unseen nature of the Father and his works must be different from the visible nature of the Son and his works.