The Unitarian Problem

[Terrywoodenpic]

How can one not interpret God and Jesus Christ as one saviour, when the scriptures repeat this truth time and time again? [The OP provides just a few examples from the scriptures]

As an Anglican "Heretic" I strongly Identify with Non Subscribing Presbyterians, the faith of my forebears.
I do not believe in Salvation in this world at all, so to me Jesus as saviour. means some one who brings the understanding necessary for salvation in the life to come. Just as in the way some one might save you from an accident, by calling out to you.

 

[shunyadragon]

By definition Unitarians do not believe in the trinity. however most unitarians follow the teachings of Christ.

While some Unitarians are UU many are not and identify as Christian Unitarians.


Unitarians in Ireland are called Non subscribing Presbyterians.
Our Faith

What Does “Non-Subscribing” mean?

It means that we are not bound by compulsory subscription to man-made creeds and doctrines of Faith.
We declare allegiance to the principle that:

• the teaching of Christ must take precedence over the doctrines of a later time, and
• Christian unity is to be sought, not in the uniformity of creed but in a common standard of duty and adherence to the commandments set out in the Holy Bible.

Our Faith

• is governed by the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments of the Holy Bible
• asserts and upholds the right of each and every individual to search these scriptural records for themselves and to use reason and personal conscience to discover God’s Divine Truth
• removes Human Tests and Confessions of Faith that restrict private judgement and prevent free enquiry
• upholds the beautiful simplicity of the great commandments as defined by Jesus Christ: “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and all your mind” and “You must love your neighbour as yourself”

You just described the fact that different Unitarians describe their 'belief as being Christians based on different interpretations of the scripture.

 

[Tumah]

Maybe your thinking will help us make further progress!

The Unitarians have verses like 1 Sam 23:5 and 2 Kings 14:27 to show that even though G-d is the only one that saves, He does so through the hands of others. So they could easily answer that your verses from the NT are explaining that G-d provides salvation but does it through a man.

Meanwhile, you are quoting two verses from Isaiah which is actually "the Father" - identified by the Tetragrammaton - talking about Himself. And in the quoted verses, "the Father" says that there are no other gods - not "no other gods besides me and my son".

Of course, they could also argue that the verses in Isaiah aren't referring to the Christian idea of Salvation at all and that's a complete interpolation on your part.

Their position is definitely the more reasonable one just from looking at the verses you presented.

 

[Redemptionsong]

As an Anglican "Heretic" I strongly Identify with Non Subscribing Presbyterians, the faith of my forebears.
I do not believe in Salvation in this world at all, so to me Jesus as saviour. means some one who brings the understanding necessary for salvation in the life to come. Just as in the way some one might save you from an accident, by calling out to you.

It's true, IMO, that salvation comes in stages. The first stage in the process of being saved is to be 'born again' of God's Spirit. The change in Spirit is necessary if the mind is to be renewed, and since we don't receive a new body [1 Corinthians 15] until the resurrection of the dead, we can safely say that salvation is not complete until the return of Christ.

The reason believers talk about 'being saved' now is that the Spirit of life is the key to resurrection. This Holy Spirit can be received here and now through faith in Jesus Christ. As long as we remain faithful, the Spirit will remain with us.

 

[Redemptionsong]

The Unitarians have verses like 1 Sam 23:5 and 2 Kings 14:27 to show that even though G-d is the only one that saves, He does so through the hands of others. So they could easily answer that your verses from the NT are explaining that G-d provides salvation but does it through a man.

Meanwhile, you are quoting two verses from Isaiah which is actually "the Father" - identified by the Tetragrammaton - talking about Himself. And in the quoted verses, "the Father" says that there are no other gods - not "no other gods besides me and my son".

Of course, they could also argue that the verses in Isaiah aren't referring to the Christian idea of Salvation at all and that's a complete interpolation on your part.

Their position is definitely the more reasonable one just from looking at the verses you presented.

There's a difference between being saved temporarily, and saved eternally. If God uses an intermediary, a human saviour, then the salvation cannot be eternal. Only God is able to give eternal life. That's why I say that Christ must be of God, and able to give life.

It doesn't appear in your scripture, but in the New Testament it says, 'For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man'.[John 5:26,27]

 

[Redemptionsong]

The Unitarians have verses like 1 Sam 23:5 and 2 Kings 14:27 to show that even though G-d is the only one that saves, He does so through the hands of others. So they could easily answer that your verses from the NT are explaining that G-d provides salvation but does it through a man.

Meanwhile, you are quoting two verses from Isaiah which is actually "the Father" - identified by the Tetragrammaton - talking about Himself. And in the quoted verses, "the Father" says that there are no other gods - not "no other gods besides me and my son".

Of course, they could also argue that the verses in Isaiah aren't referring to the Christian idea of Salvation at all and that's a complete interpolation on your part.

Their position is definitely the more reasonable one just from looking at the verses you presented.

Another point worth noting, is that the Father, the LORD, appears in Psalm 23:1 as the Shepherd, but it's clear from Ezekiel 34:23 that God has set up a shepherd on earth as 'prince'. What is a prince if not an heir to the throne?

So who is the shepherd? Is it the LORD, or is the Lord?

 

[Father Heathen]

If you are so sure that the Bible does not have a sound historical basis maybe you could give some examples of where it fails to match the facts!

Hundreds of books have been written attempting to show historical or scientific error, but they have all failed to convince.

Given the length of time that these scriptures have been in existence, you would have thought that some convincing evidence could have been produced, had the scriptures been erroneous!

The challenge is yours. I have no significant issues with the Bible, only with interpretation.

Willful ignorance, denial, and intellectual dishonestly don't invalidate logic and evidence. Refusal to accept that the earth is round doesn't make it flat.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Willful ignorance, denial, and intellectual dishonestly don't invalidate logic and evidence. Refusal to accept that the earth is round doesn't make it flat.

Well, we can start with that one!

Isaiah 40:22: 'It is he that sitteth on the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:'

Before Pythagoras, and well before Columbus!

 

[Tumah]

There's a difference between being saved temporarily, and saved eternally. If God uses an intermediary, a human saviour, then the salvation cannot be eternal. Only God is able to give eternal life. That's why I say that Christ must be of God, and able to give life.

It doesn't appear in your scripture, but in the New Testament it says, 'For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man'.[John 5:26,27]

If I was a Christian Unitarian I would argue that that's a discrepancy that you're making. G-d can do anything He wants through any intermediary He chooses. So you'd need a verse that says otherwise to back up your claim.

Another point worth noting, is that the Father, the LORD, appears in Psalm 23:1 as the Shepherd, but it's clear from Ezekiel 34:23 that God has set up a shepherd on earth as 'prince'. What is a prince if not an heir to the throne?

So who is the shepherd? Is it the LORD, or is the Lord?

Isaiah 43:15 says that G-d is the King but it's clear from 1 Sam. 16:1 that G-d appointed David as a king of Israel in place of Saul who was king of Israel.

So who is the king? G-d or David?

 

[Redemptionsong]

If I was a Christian Unitarian I would argue that that's a discrepancy that you're making. G-d can do anything He wants through any intermediary He chooses. So you'd need a verse that says otherwise to back up your claim.


Isaiah 43:15 says that G-d is the King but it's clear from 1 Sam. 16:1 that G-d appointed David as a king of Israel in place of Saul who was king of Israel.

So who is the king? G-d or David?

The verse I would use to prove that only Christ can give life is John 11:25: 'Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:'

Can a mere mortal make this claim? Can a man resurrect the dead and give immortality?

Ezekiel 34:23 must be a reference to the Messiah, not to king David, who by the time of Ezekiel's writing was already in the grave. This passage is talking about a future shepherd, the Messiah.

So, if the Messiah is to be the LORD's shepherd, is he not also the subject of Psalm 23? How can you distinguish between the LORD and the Lord?

 

[Tumah]

The verse I would use to prove that only Christ can give life is John 11:25: 'Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:'

Can a mere mortal make this claim? Can a man resurrect the dead and give immortality?

Well, Ezekiel raised the dead from dry bones, so it shouldn't be too great of a step for a Christian to say that G-d gave some other person even great ability. Again, unless you have a verse that says it can't be so.

Ezekiel 34:23 must be a reference to the Messiah, not to king David, who by the time of Ezekiel's writing was already in the grave. This passage is talking about a future shepherd, the Messiah.

So, if the Messiah is to be the LORD's shepherd, is he not also the subject of Psalm 23? How can you distinguish between the LORD and the Lord?

I think you missed the point. My point was that we find G-d calling Himself something (in this case a king) and also calling someone else by that same something (a king). Bringing that point here, just because G-d calls Himself a Shepherd, doesn't mean that every time G-d says the word shepherd He's referring to Himself.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Well, Ezekiel raised the dead from dry bones, so it shouldn't be too great of a step for a Christian to say that G-d gave some other person even great ability. Again, unless you have a verse that says it can't be so.


I think you missed the point. My point was that we find G-d calling Himself something (in this case a king) and also calling someone else by that same something (a king). Bringing that point here, just because G-d calls Himself a Shepherd, doesn't mean that every time G-d says the word shepherd He's referring to Himself.

I hope you're not telling me that Ezekiel had the power to raise the dry bones!

Ezekiel 37:5: 'Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live:'

Now compare this with Jesus; John 20:22: 'And when he had said this, he [Jesus] breathed on them [the disciples], and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:'

Acts 17:24,25 'God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;'

The point you make about God being king, and David being a king does not fit with the point being made. There is to be ONE true shepherd over the flock, not many shepherds. There is to be ONE true messiah, not many messiahs (as there are earthly kings).

Ezekiel 34:23: 'And I will set up one shepherd over them......even my servant David..'

 

[Tumah]

I hope you're not telling me that Ezekiel had the power to raise the dry bones!

Ezekiel 37:5: 'Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live:'

Now compare this with Jesus; John 20:22: 'And when he had said this, he [Jesus] breathed on them [the disciples], and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:'

Acts 17:24,25 'God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;'

You've taken the verse from Ezekiel out of context. In context, G-d is telling Ezekiel to speak those words to the bones in order to make them come alive.

Of course Ezekiel didn't have the power to raise the dry bones. He performed the ritual G-d told him to perform and consequently the dead were brought back to life. Similarly, Elijah revives the widow's son and Elisha, the Shunamite's. Acts is not denying that.

Similarly, Jesus is performing his breathing ritual to do whatever it is he's doing there.

The point you make about God being king, and David being a king does not fit with the point being made. There is to be ONE true shepherd over the flock, not many shepherds. There is to be ONE true messiah, not many messiahs (as there are earthly kings).

Ezekiel 34:23: 'And I will set up one shepherd over them......even my servant David..'

Of course the point fits. G-d can be king at the same time that there is another king. G-d can be Shepherd at the same time that there is another shepherd.

It doesn't say anything about one TRUE anything. It says G-d would set up one shepherd - as opposed to setting up many shepherds. G-d - as you noted in your citation - is already a Shepherd and doesn't require setting up as one, so He's obviously not part of this count of shepherds to be set up. Perhaps it's referring to what you've called "earthly" shepherds.

 

[Redemptionsong]

You've taken the verse from Ezekiel out of context. In context, G-d is telling Ezekiel to speak those words to the bones in order to make them come alive.

Of course Ezekiel didn't have the power to raise the dry bones. He performed the ritual G-d told him to perform and consequently the dead were brought back to life. Similarly, Elijah revives the widow's son and Elisha, the Shunamite's. Acts is not denying that.

Similarly, Jesus is performing his breathing ritual to do whatever it is he's doing there.


Of course the point fits. G-d can be king at the same time that there is another king. G-d can be Shepherd at the same time that there is another shepherd.

It doesn't say anything about one TRUE anything. It says G-d would set up one shepherd - as opposed to setting up many shepherds. G-d - as you noted in your citation - is already a Shepherd and doesn't require setting up as one, so He's obviously not part of this count of shepherds to be set up. Perhaps it's referring to what you've called "earthly" shepherds.

Well, if you read Ezekiel 34, it is quite clear what God thinks about the shepherds over his flock!

Ezekiel 34:8: 'As I live, saith the Lord GOD, surely because my flock became a prey, and my flock became meat to every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd, neither did my shepherds search for my flock, but the shepherds fed themselves, and fed not my flock;'

So, it's quite fair to call the shepherd chosen by God 'the TRUE shepherd'. He is the only one that feeds the flock!

It is also clear from Ezekiel 34:23 that the one shepherd who feeds the flock is the MESSIAH, 'my servant David'. Do you question this?

If God in heaven is the one shepherd, and he has one shepherd on earth doing his work, who are the flock to follow? Do the flock follow the shepherd on earth, or the shepherd in heaven?

 

[Redemptionsong]

You've taken the verse from Ezekiel out of context. In context, G-d is telling Ezekiel to speak those words to the bones in order to make them come alive.

Of course Ezekiel didn't have the power to raise the dry bones. He performed the ritual G-d told him to perform and consequently the dead were brought back to life. Similarly, Elijah revives the widow's son and Elisha, the Shunamite's. Acts is not denying that.

Similarly, Jesus is performing his breathing ritual to do whatever it is he's doing there.


Of course the point fits. G-d can be king at the same time that there is another king. G-d can be Shepherd at the same time that there is another shepherd.

It doesn't say anything about one TRUE anything. It says G-d would set up one shepherd - as opposed to setting up many shepherds. G-d - as you noted in your citation - is already a Shepherd and doesn't require setting up as one, so He's obviously not part of this count of shepherds to be set up. Perhaps it's referring to what you've called "earthly" shepherds.

Here's another reference to a King.

Psalm 89:18: 'For the LORD is our defence; and the Holy One of Israel is our king'.

Who is the Holy One of Israel?

 

[74x12]

Isaiah 43:11: 'I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.'

Isaiah 45:22 'Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.'

There is one God, and one saviour [everlasting, not temporary], according to scripture.

So, I ask, is Jesus Christ the one saviour, or not?

Luke 2:11: 'For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.'

John 4:41,42: ' And many more believed because of his own word; And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.'

2 Peter 1:11: 'For an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.'

Can you be a Unitarian and a Christian?

Unitarian just believe God is one person so I have no disagreement with that. I believe the 3 persons in one God is not accurate.

Jesus is the Father and the holy Spirit.

This is how it works in a nutshell:

• God is the Father in relationship to His offspring
• the Son of God in human manifestation
• the holy Spirit( literally meaning wind in Hebrew and Greek) in movement.

When God moves then that's the Spirit. When the Spirit moves out with definite intention then that's the Word of God. Because words give shape or specific resonance to breath creating distinct sound. So then the Word of God is one and the same with the Spirit of God. Just sent with intention(vibration) to create or to destroy. When Jesus the "Word made flesh" was born that was the Spirit of God sent into the world.

So just as words provide structure to air. So the Word of God forms all things that exist.

 

[SeekerOnThePath]

Isaiah 43:11: 'I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.'

Isaiah 45:22 'Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.'

There is one God, and one saviour [everlasting, not temporary], according to scripture.

So, I ask, is Jesus Christ the one saviour, or not?

Luke 2:11: 'For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.'

John 4:41,42: ' And many more believed because of his own word; And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.'

2 Peter 1:11: 'For an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.'

Can you be a Unitarian and a Christian?

Or do you mean to ask: "Does the existence of the Torah make the New Testament invalid?"

Because you seem to be coming to it from a fully-formed position before you even ask the question.

 

[SeekerOnThePath]

There's a difference between being saved temporarily, and saved eternally. If God uses an intermediary, a human saviour, then the salvation cannot be eternal. Only God is able to give eternal life. That's why I say that Christ must be of God, and able to give life.

It doesn't appear in your scripture, but in the New Testament it says, 'For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man'.[John 5:26,27]

As Jesus says in John 8:28-29:
So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him"

 

[Redemptionsong]

Unitarian just believe God is one person so I have no disagreement with that. I believe the 3 persons in one God is not accurate.

Jesus is the Father and the holy Spirit.

This is how it works in a nutshell:

• God is the Father in relationship to His offspring
• the Son of God in human manifestation
• the holy Spirit( literally meaning wind in Hebrew and Greek) in movement.

When God moves then that's the Spirit. When the Spirit moves out with definite intention then that's the Word of God. Because words give shape or specific resonance to breath creating distinct sound. So then the Word of God is one and the same with the Spirit of God. Just sent with intention(vibration) to create or to destroy. When Jesus the "Word made flesh" was born that was the Spirit of God sent into the world.

So just as words provide structure to air. So the Word of God forms all things that exist.

I know we share much in common, and I'm very willing to accept correction if you are able to demonstrate my error from scripture!

Your description of the activity of God is much as I understand it. I would like to know more about whether you believe Jesus pre-existed.

I also question your understanding of when the Spirit of God was sent into the world. Was it at birth, or at baptism? I believe the Spirit was sent at baptism.

My issue with Unitarianism is not the belief in one God. The issue is whether God has come to earth, and whether the Son of God is worthy of worship. I believe Jesus Christ is worthy of worship. This is clearly not the case with Unitarians who claim that only the Father is God, and only the Father is worthy of worship.

Defining what is meant by worship is important, and in answer to this I would say that it means 'to serve from the heart in Spirit and truth'. IMO, if a person does not serve the Son, in Spirit and truth, then a person cannot claim to serve the Father.

 

[Redemptionsong]

As Jesus says in John 8:28-29:
So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him"

I have no issue with John 8. I understand that the Son of God always does what his Father teaches. This is because the Spirit of the Father is in the Son. The Son is an heir to the throne, and when he takes his position on the throne he becomes the King, and is given everlasting dominion over heaven and earth. [See Daniel 7:13,14]