On my search for truth, I approached a certain Unitarian as many others I have been friendly talking with.
In this case, please read on, to see how I instead did not discover more truth, but instead MORE CONTRADICTIONS in the UNITARIAN FAITH and completely different teachings within the UNITARIAN FAITH, that I have never seen before.
COULD THE UNITARIANS WHO TEACH JESUS DID NOT EXIST BEFORE HIS FLESH BE CORRECT?
I DO KNOW KNOW.
BUT what I do know, and what does seem certain within the Unitarian faith, within my many debates with the Unitarians, who say: There is a serious bias problem with Trinitarian translations, which I do agree, and yet the Unitarians have proved with their own hands how they use false translations like John 1:18, and Rev 3:14, who have also proved with their own hands how they make countless contradictions within their own faith.
One perfect example while debating a Unitarian who was confident he was more knowledgeable then most Bible Scholars by teaching and saying Revelation 19:11-13 specifically says that Gods name is the word of God, (and NOT Jesus), and saying Jesus did not become FLESH, yet again contradicting the basic Unitarian faith, creating countless confusions for simple seekers like me, searching for the truth.
REVELATION 19:13?
AS GOD IS AN ALMIGHTY INVISIBLE SPIRIT John 4:24, and yet johnspartan98, seems to believe GOD SITS on a white horse, and has eyes, and a HEAD, and has clothes, and is clothed with a vesture dipped in blood.
First John 1:1 John 1’s subject is developed in 1 John 1.
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. — 1 John 1:1
Revelation 19:13 While John 1:1 is generally considered the first mention of the Logos in the New Testament, chronologically the first reference occurs is in the book of Revelation (c 85). In it the Logos is spoken of as the name of Jesus, who at the Second Coming rides a white horse into the Battle of Armageddon wearing many crowns, and is identified as King of Kings, and Lord of Lords:[19:11-16] He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God . . . And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.” — Revelation 19:13, 16 (NASB)
Alexandrian texts?
And this same person known as johnspartan98 also tells me: You are not listening. Scholars argue that your older Alexandrian texts are not necessarily older and have been altered by the RCC to reflect their Jesus is God dogma.
We see yet AGAIN how UNITARIANS like johnspartan98 CONTINUE TO MAKE COUNTLESS CONTRADICTIONS against the BEST Scholars in the world who say the OLDEST BIBLES and MSS like the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus DATED in the 4th century are the BEST and MOST RELIABLE, but INSTEAD cause more CONFUSION by teaching the OPPOSITE, and instead USE the Textus Receptus.
Dan Corner on the Textus Receptus. writes:
The Textus Receptus, which was formulated by Erasmus and edited by Stephanus and Beza. Erasmus was a Roman Catholic priest, who died a faithful Catholic. Erasmus dedicated his edition of the Greek New Testament to Pope Leo X. Erasmus depended mostly upon two twelfth-century manuscripts and had no Greek manuscript which contained the last six verses of the book of Revelation. He translated those verses from the Latin Vulgate into Greek. Erasmus wrote of Mary as "my salvation" and "my refuge." Furthermore, he wished for “ Salvation through Jesus, but not without his Mother.”
I also told johnspartan98 about the Book of Enoch, hoping to have his polite thoughts and views on WHY Enoch said in:
THE BOOK OF ENOCH. CHAPTER 62. CHAPTER 62: 7. For from the beginning that Son of Man was hidden, and the Most High kept him in the presence of His power, and revealed him only to the chosen. (1 Peter 1:11-13), (1 Corinthians 2:9-11)
THE BOOK OF ENOCH. CHAPTER 62. CHAPTER 62: 7. For from the beginning that Son of Man was hidden, and the Most High kept him in the presence of His power, and revealed him only to the chosen. (1 Peter 1:11-13), (1 Corinthians 2:9-11)
Notice his reply below: One reference from the Book of Enoch in Jude does not prove the Book of Enoch is completely accurate. Save your links and references. I told you I read it before you did. You are being condescending and ignorant. You are double minded. I told you I am a Sola Scriptura believer. If it’s not in the Bible, then it's horse droppings.
Well as we see johnspartan98 said One reference, and yet even simple minded people like me understand there are OVER A HUNDRED REFERENCES IN THE BOOK OF ENOCH that confirm with countless scriptures in the Bible:
The BOOK of Enoch With biblical references: https://bookofenochreferences.wordpress.com/2014/05/01/the-book-of-enoch-chapter-62/
The BOOK of Enoch With biblical references: https://bookofenochreferences.wordpress.com/2014/05/01/the-book-of-enoch-chapter-62/
He then tells me: I told you I am a Sola Scriptura believer. If it’s not in the Bible, then it’s horse droppings.
But what if the Holy Prophet of GOD, Enoch’s book, turns out to be mostly genuine, and yet He has compared it with horse manure, which makes it hard for me to believe how someone can be an example of GODS love.
But what if the Holy Prophet of GOD, Enoch’s book, turns out to be mostly genuine, and yet He has compared it with horse manure, which makes it hard for me to believe how someone can be an example of GODS love.
Why is he also IGNORING Jude refers to something which is recorded WORD FOR WORD in the Book of Enoch 1:9.
And was in wide circulation 2000 years ago and Jude evidently considered it "canonical enough" to quote authoritatively. Jude 1:14-15: It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, 15 to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”
OLD TESTAMENT ORIGINS:
Much of Revelation employs ancient sources, primarily but not exclusively the Old Testament. For example, Howard-Brook and Gwyther regard the Book of Enoch (1 Enoch) as an equally significant but contextually different source. "Enoch's journey has no close parallel in the Hebrew scriptures." Revelation, in one section, forms an inverted parallel (chiasmus) with the book of Enoch in which 1 En 100:1-3 has a river a blood deep enough to submerge a chariot and in Rev 14:20 has a river of blood up to the horse's bridle. There is an angel ascending in both accounts (1 En 100:4; Rev 14:14-19) and in both accounts have three messages (1 En 100:7-9; Rev 14:6-12). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation#Academic
I’m no scientist yet it is clear to me at least that the Essenes must have also believed Enoch’s writings were genuine and originally written by the prophet of God-Enoch.
Chester of Reluctant Messenger" States. There is abundant proof that Christ approved of the Book of Enoch. Over a hundred phrases in the New Testament find precedents in the Book of Enoch. http://www.angelfire.com/ok4/ourchurch/beg/index2.html
ENOCH TELLS US IN CHAPTER X. 4.
And again the Lord said to Raphael: 'Bind Azâzêl hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert, which is in Dûdâêl, and cast him therein. 5. And place upon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there for ever, and cover his face that he may not see light. 6. And on the day of the great judgement he shall be cast into the fire.
What Enoch is stating here is exactly what is stated in the book of 2 Peter 2:4 and written 1000’s of years before Peter:
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
How did PETER state the above, written 1000’s of years LATER when it is IDENTICAL to 2 Peter 2:4, and yet johnspartan98 says: One reference from the Book of Enoch in Jude does not prove the Book of Enoch is completely accurate. when there are TRULY COUNTLESS accurate and IDENTICAL writings as the Bible?
THE SINGLE VERSE BY ENOCH: CHAPTER 62: 7.
FOR FROM THE BEGINNING THAT SON OF MAN WAS HIDDEN, AND THE MOST HIGH KEPT HIM IN THE PRESENCE OF HIS POWER, and revealed him only to the chosen.
FOR FROM THE BEGINNING THAT SON OF MAN WAS HIDDEN, AND THE MOST HIGH KEPT HIM IN THE PRESENCE OF HIS POWER, and revealed him only to the chosen.
IS ENOCH’S SINGLE VERSE ANOTHER COINCIDENCE WITH WHAT JESUS SAID:
John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, HOW CAN YOU BELIEVE IF I TELL YOU HEAVENLY THINGS? 3 No one has ascended into heaven EXCEPT HE WHO DESCENDED FROM HEAVEN, the Son of Man.
We know that Jesus often spoke figuratively, but did ENOCH and PAUL also speak figuratively?
ENOCH:
FOR FROM THE BEGINNING THAT SON OF MAN WAS HIDDEN, AND THE MOST HIGH KEPT HIM IN THE PRESENCE OF HIS POWER, and revealed him only to the chosen.
PAUL:
1 Corinthians 15:47: The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; THE SECOND MAN IS FROM HEAVEN.
Micah 5:2:
We even have a prophecy of Jesus agreeing with ENOCH and PAUL saying Jesus is of old. JOHN 17:5: And Jesus said that He (HAD) the Glory with the Father BEFORE the world, NOT that He (HAS) the Glory with the Father BEFORE the world.
@johnspartan98 says: Question for you: how does someone exist before they exist? Do you know what the logic law of non contradiction states? That law applies to preexistence. The concept behind the word is self refuting. A person cannot be, and not be, at the same time.
Could this be WHY these Unitarians are changing the meanings of what the scriptures actually mean and teach and say, as Unitarians admit that they cannot understand: how does someone exist before they exist?
WHY aren’t Unitarians not willing to accept as Jesus said: ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE WITH GOD, as Paul said (Jesus was a MYSTERY) 1 Timothy 3:16: Great indeed, we confess, is the (MYSTERY) of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh.
HOW IS IT A MYSTERY, AS PAUL TELLS US IN 1 TIMOTHY 3:16, IF JESUS WAS ONLY EVER A MAN BORN FROM MARY?
IF Jesus was only ever always a MAN there is NO MYSTERY, because GOD can cause any human to be born in a women as we see with a perfect example with ISAAC and JOHN THE BAPTIST who was giving birth by his mother in old age.
Now Jesus coming down from GOD out of HEAVEN, preexisting with His Father BEFORE ALL CREATION and then becoming a MAN truly is as Paul has said: we confess, is the (MYSTERY) of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh.
Philippians 2:5 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, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
WHAT DID I LEARN FROM JOHNSPARTAN98?
Hoping that I could LEARN some TRUTH from humbly asking johnspartan98 some questions and presenting why and what I believed, I instead learnt something quite different, which I was not expecting, that he was a very rude person, who talks to other faiths with terrible disrespect , aggressiveness, hatred and bitterness, wrongly looking down and mocking other believers, which shocks me for someone who claims to be a loving child of GOD who wants to help others know the truth, but which are proofs that raises some RED FLAGS regarding the Unitarian faith, who believe GOD is calling them to teach the lost, in love, truth and respect.
He instead revealed a PRIDEFUL HEART, by belittling and INSULTING people like me, the very opposite to GOD, who hates PRIDEFUL HEARTS, who instead looks on little people and blesses them revealing GOD’S BEAUTIFUL HEART, just as Jesus told us how GOD has hidden things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; Matthew 11:25.
He instead revealed a PRIDEFUL HEART, by belittling and INSULTING people like me, the very opposite to GOD, who hates PRIDEFUL HEARTS, who instead looks on little people and blesses them revealing GOD’S BEAUTIFUL HEART, just as Jesus told us how GOD has hidden things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; Matthew 11:25.
CONFIRMATION OF UNITARIAN CONTRADICTIONS:
Just for the records, an email was sent from Mr Anthony Buzzard on Wed 13 Feb 2019, saying: Revelation 19:13: It refers to Jesus of course. He is now the Word as a human being.
John 1:14: Yes, of course the word became the human person Jesus. Anthony Buzzard.
Mr Anthony Buzzard is truly a nice true humble man, who is a good example of being a man of GOD, who never gives INSULTS or acts with aggressiveness, hatred and bitterness, I know this because we have been friendly talking and debating every week for over two years now.
Sir Anthony Buzzard is one of the main leaders of the Unitarian faith, also told me there were some bad and false teachings on the UNITARIAN WEB SITE of: REV Commentary, and that I should not believe it all.
There is the concrete proof of how Unitarians contradict each other, and yet they teach people we should join their faith, because they are the only faith who UNDERSTAND AND KNOW THE TRUTH, and yet these type of Unitarians cannot even agree on what is the truth within their own faith, and as Mr Anthony buzzard has said, not to believe everything the Unitarian web site of: REV commentary.
@johnspartan98 also says:
All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. (1599 GNV) -Nothing in the context of John 1:1-3 indicates it is referring to the Genesis creation. It relates to the RENEWAL of Creation through the GOSPEL (logos).
I also do not see anywhere in the context of John 1:1-3 indicates it is referring to RENEWAL of Creation.
Above we see @johnspartan98 makes again another clear contradiction to what My Anthony Buzzard told me that John 1:3 is referring to the Genesis creation, and NOT the NEW.
In fact just for the records, here was an email from Anthony Buzzard on 18/FEB/2019:
Simon, why are you struggling with this! The obvious ref is to Genesis Then in v, 14 we have the word not Word becoming a human persons. The word is the wisdom of God embodied in the Human being Why not just enjoy Luke 1:35 and Matt 1:18, 20 (coming into existence, begotten), the coming into existence of the Person, the SON Mary had a baby and the baby was fathered by God in Mary by miracle John is careful to speak of the Light (IT) that was with God (Dan 2:22) but a person (him) in v 10 The HIM there is a delberate ad sensum (ie breaking the rules of grammar to make the light a person) To believe in a non hu man preexistingpersons is antichrist in I John 4 No need for that. Anthony The ages were made through the SON in Heb 1 And the present new creation was through the SON in Col 1. Not so hard. I hope you are still an antitrinitarian.
johnspartan98 seems to also contradict the REV UNITARIAN web site:
“All things were made through it.” The logos is an “it,” not a “him.” God made everything through and according to His logos, His plan and purpose, and with wisdom. The logos was God’s plan and purpose, especially as it was put into action (see commentary on John 1:1). Furthermore, it was integrally tied together with His wisdom (see commentary on John 1:2).
There is also a problem with the fact that UNITARIANS say and believe John 1:3 says: “All things were made through it.” The logos is an “it,” not a “him.”
Anthony Buzzard agreed with me that (αὐτοῦ) can EQUALLY say (Him).
And we do in fact see this in John 1:10: He was in the world, and the world was made through (him αὐτοῦ), yet the world did not know (him αὐτοῦ).
We know John 1:10 is about Jesus because there is NO change of persons as we go to John 1:11: He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
And the REV UNITARIAN web site even admit this is puzzling by saying: John 1:11 changes subjects, and although we are to understand that it is still God working, but now through Christ and not through the logos, it seems apparent that the subject changes from the logos to Christ. Although we modern English readers could wish for a clearer presentation of what is happening in the text, given the poetic style of what John is writing, we can gain sufficient clarity from the scope of Scripture.
There also seems to be a contradiction regarding Revelation 3:14 between to MAIN UNITARIANS web sites.
@johnspartan98 also says:
All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. (1599 GNV) -Nothing in the context of John 1:1-3 indicates it is referring to the Genesis creation. It relates to the RENEWAL of Creation through the GOSPEL (logos).
I also do not see anywhere in the context of John 1:1-3 indicates it is referring to RENEWAL of Creation.
Above we see @johnspartan98 makes again another clear contradiction to what My Anthony Buzzard told me that John 1:3 is referring to the Genesis creation, and NOT the NEW.
In fact just for the records, here was an email from Anthony Buzzard on 18/FEB/2019:
Simon, why are you struggling with this! The obvious ref is to Genesis Then in v, 14 we have the word not Word becoming a human persons. The word is the wisdom of God embodied in the Human being Why not just enjoy Luke 1:35 and Matt 1:18, 20 (coming into existence, begotten), the coming into existence of the Person, the SON Mary had a baby and the baby was fathered by God in Mary by miracle John is careful to speak of the Light (IT) that was with God (Dan 2:22) but a person (him) in v 10 The HIM there is a delberate ad sensum (ie breaking the rules of grammar to make the light a person) To believe in a non hu man preexistingpersons is antichrist in I John 4 No need for that. Anthony The ages were made through the SON in Heb 1 And the present new creation was through the SON in Col 1. Not so hard. I hope you are still an antitrinitarian.
johnspartan98 seems to also contradict the REV UNITARIAN web site:
“All things were made through it.” The logos is an “it,” not a “him.” God made everything through and according to His logos, His plan and purpose, and with wisdom. The logos was God’s plan and purpose, especially as it was put into action (see commentary on John 1:1). Furthermore, it was integrally tied together with His wisdom (see commentary on John 1:2).
There is also a problem with the fact that UNITARIANS say and believe John 1:3 says: “All things were made through it.” The logos is an “it,” not a “him.”
Anthony Buzzard agreed with me that (αὐτοῦ) can EQUALLY say (Him).
And we do in fact see this in John 1:10: He was in the world, and the world was made through (him αὐτοῦ), yet the world did not know (him αὐτοῦ).
We know John 1:10 is about Jesus because there is NO change of persons as we go to John 1:11: He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
And the REV UNITARIAN web site even admit this is puzzling by saying: John 1:11 changes subjects, and although we are to understand that it is still God working, but now through Christ and not through the logos, it seems apparent that the subject changes from the logos to Christ. Although we modern English readers could wish for a clearer presentation of what is happening in the text, given the poetic style of what John is writing, we can gain sufficient clarity from the scope of Scripture.
There also seems to be a contradiction regarding Revelation 3:14 between to MAIN UNITARIANS web sites.
On the site of The Trinity Delusion, we read:
It is quite clear that Revelation 3:14 is referring to the new creation of God and Jesus is the beginning of that new creation because he is the firstborn out of the dead. He is WHERE the new creation begins and this is why we are new creations in him, that is, in the risen Christ (see 2 Corinthians 5:16-17). Jesus is the First and the Last of the New Creation because he is the Beginning of the new creation, the firstborn out of the dead. All things are created anew IN HIM, the risen son, the firstborn out of the dead. and that is why we are new creations IN HIM.
There are scholars who say the Greek word archē should be translated “beginning” here because it is referring to the new age that Christ will establish (cp. the NLT translation). If that were so, the verse would be similar to Hebrews 1:10. Understood that way, Christ, being the “firstborn from the dead,” would be the beginning of God’s new creation. Although it is certainly possible from a textual standpoint to say that Christ is the beginning of the new creation, that does not seem to be correct here. For one thing, from the scope of Scripture there are many verses that speak of Christ as the ruler of God’s creation, and very few that speak of him in the context of the new creation. Furthermore, Revelation 3:14 is not the new creation yet, but is still part of the “old order of things,” before the Battle of Armageddon. The context of Revelation 3:14 is Christ speaking to the Assembly at Laodicea during the “present evil age.” He is ruling over them, rebuking them sharply and encouraging them to change so he can reward them. Thus, translating archē as “ruler” seems to best fit the context. No one can argue with the fact that Christ is the ruler over all of God’s creation. (See also, Donald Snedeker, Our Heavenly Father Has No Equals, International Scholars Publication, San Francisco, 1998, p. 470).
These countless UNITARIAN CONTRADICTIONS are truly sad when seeking out the truth, which is why we need to all pray for each other no matter what faith we are in.
The question is?
WHO and WHAT can we believe, IF as we clearly SEE, Unitarians CANNOT EVEN AGREE with themselves?
YOU DECIDE.
From my own research I find the Unitarians have good explanations against Jesus Pre-existence, and also some very poor and feeble explanations against Jesus Pre-existence.
From my now research:
We have seen in this short article just some of the Unitarian contradictions within their own faith, which is NOT at all helpful for simple minded people like me seeking the truth, but instead simply causes more confusion, uncertainty and doubt, with trying to understand the truth and who is correct.
I have added just some good explanations and proofs of Jesus Pre-existence.
But it is clear BOTH sides have good and bad explanations, and we will just have to wait and see.
From my own research I find the Unitarians have good explanations against Jesus Pre-existence, and also some very poor and feeble explanations against Jesus Pre-existence.
From my now research:
We have seen in this short article just some of the Unitarian contradictions within their own faith, which is NOT at all helpful for simple minded people like me seeking the truth, but instead simply causes more confusion, uncertainty and doubt, with trying to understand the truth and who is correct.
I have added just some good explanations and proofs of Jesus Pre-existence.
But it is clear BOTH sides have good and bad explanations, and we will just have to wait and see.
Questions for Unitarians?
1) Where did Jesus ever say he did not know his father before he was BORN?
2). Where did Jesus ever say He did not PRE EXIST His FLESH?
3) Jesus always taught that we MUST believe and follow His teachings, so WHERE did Jesus ever say it is a SIN to believe He PRE EXISTED His FLESH?
4) Where is it written in the FIRST AND GREATEST COMMANDMENTS that it is a SIN to believe Jesus DID or DID NOT PRE EXISTED His FLESH?
What do I Simon Brown believe?
I believe Jesus is the SON of His ONE TRUE GOD, John 10:36, John 17:5, and His Father is true GOD ALONE, as Jesus told us in Mark 12:29.
HOW AND WHEN DID JESUS COME INTO EXISTENCE?
I do NOT know for sure, but what I do know for sure, is that He did come into EXISTENCE, and was Sacrificed by His GOD, not to condemn us, but save us.
Therefore I love GOD and His SON for what Jesus did for us on the CROSS, and therefore no longer concerned with HOW AND WHEN JESUS CAME INTO EXISTENCE, but that the true love of GOD was revealed, in that Jesus DID COME INTO EXISTENCE to save us, Amen.
Simon Brown.
