Contending The Faith

Below I will be refuting counter points that are raised by Arthur Daniels Jr. that he feels supposedly shows the flaws of those who reject the traditional message of meshiach being equal to YHVH

Introduction

Over the years, many people who do not understand the doctrine of the Trinity and teh correlatvie teaching on the the Deity or Godhood of jesus have come up with weak and faulty arguments which tehy think refute these teachings. SOme of these arguments appear stornger and more valid than others. Many of them are riddled with logical and theological flaws that are very easy to expose if you know Scripture and logic well.

Bear in mind, however, that the primary flaw in most arguments against the doctrine of the Trinity is the fact that the people trying to refute it do not truly understand it but yet try to argue from their misunderstanding. I will begin with a prime example.

Jayshawn's Response: I would first like to counter his introductory point; Arthru Daniels assume that those who usually oppose Triity do so because they don't understand Trinity. This is untrue and shows just how little exposure Arthur Daniels has had to those that do oppose such a doctrine. I know I can personally speak for many that have as I come from a previous Trinitarian belief and fully understand the teaching.

I would also like to state now that I am not in any way, shape, or form affliated with "Biblical Unitarian", I will be arguing my own counter-points to Arthur's counter-points of the "Biblical Unitarian" web site.

Weak Argument #1:

Anti-Trinitarian; "There is only ONE God" Read Deuteronomy 6:4 which says: "Hear O Israel: The LORD our God the LORD is one!"

Trinitarian response: Amen! The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that there is only ONE God. Using Deut. 6:4 exposes the fact that you do not understand what we teach. We teach that GOd is ONE God, but that He eternally self-exists in nature as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, according to the Scriptures (Matt. 3:16, 17; 28:19; Philippians 2:11; John 1;1; 2 Peter 1:1 [in Greek and more accurate translations], Acts 5:3,4). This is by no means an exhaustive list. For a more complete list, see The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity.

The "three" (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) are called "God" and have ONE (singular) name according to Matthew 28:19, and that "name" is Yahweh, Thus we have the term Trinity, which simply means tri-unity, or three in ONE.

In historical context, Deuteronomy 6:4 is not an indictment against trinitarianism but against polytheism, sinse that is what Israel was surrounded by. Their God was just "one" as opposed to the many gods that the other nations worshipped. Using Deuteronomy 6:4 proves that although you may know of the doctrine of the Trinity, you apparently do not accurately understand what this doctrine teaches. It is the height of folly trying to disprove something that you don't even understand to begin with. Begin again with a better understanding and THEN try to refute the doctrine.

This next one is my all-time favorite weak argument used against the Deity of Jesus. Keep in mind that most who deny the Deity of Jesus will also deny the doctrine of the Trinity because the two doctrines are interrelated.

Jayshawn's Response: First Arthur Daniels makes this poiont that Trinity teaches that the trhee in one Elohim is one but that does not mean it is so. Arthur Daniels make a statement that it's those who don't understand that Trinity allows for one Elohim who argue against it but this is not the case. I fully understand the Trinitarian drum the beats "Our three in one god is only one god, we only worship on god!" But I say that Trinitarians willingly or very ignorantly want to deny reality so that their doctrine can fit into Hebraic scriptures which testify against it. nobody can truly bring evidence that the believers of old though of God as some triune entity.

The few verses Arthur Daniels bring up just goes to show how little support there is for Trinity, it shows how the Trinitarian doctrine truly requires pullilng lots of things from between the lines which are not written in the verses they run to. One usual sign of an erroneous/false doctrine is that there's need to inject a lot of idea into a verse here or a verse there. These doctrines such as Trinitarian lack context severely but "proof verses" are used here and there all over scriptures.

Arthur Daniels also asserts a point without validating it and that is that the three are called "god" which they are not. There are no scriptural support for this and the bruden of proof lies on him to show such. let's look at Matt. 28:19 to see exactly what it says and does not say: "Go you therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:" This verse does talk about immersion in the three different things, however this verse says nothing of three individuals having the same name, sharing the same position, or being equal to each other.

It's amazing and quite dishonest to attempt to derive such points from this one verse. Any sincere study would destroy the next erroneous idea that the three are named Yahweh which shows the lack of study and/or understanding of Scripture. Its also unfortunate that this man has followed the normal paths of an erroneous doctrine which is showing many manmade points without scriptural backing but instead injecting his own ideas into scripture. Nowhere could this man pull out the idea that Yeshua or the Holy Spirit is called Yahweh.

Arthur should understand that in its historical context, the Sh'ma of Yisrael does indeed stand in opposition to the Trinity. It still lies on the Trinitarians to truly prove how three peoplle equally being Elohim are still counted as one Elohim which makes no sense logically in any other application. If there are three persons that are the boss then there are three bosses plain and simple no matter how much they are unified. The Trinity is an idea of a triune Elohim does not stand in agreement with the Sh'ma found in Deut. 6:4 The context nor the words spoken by YHVH refer in no regards to the idea of three people all Elohim and that Elohim being one. IT DOES however identifies YHVH as being the sole person delivering the children of Yisrael out of Egypt and that person was ONE being alone.

Arthur is found not following his own advice to truly understand something before trying to refute it. Arthur shows a severe lack in understanding the Anti-Trinitarian position.

Weak Argument #2

Anti-Trinitarian: "God says He is not a man in Numbers 23:19. Jesus was a man. Therefore Jesus cannot be God."

Trinitarian response: This is a classic example of the falllacy of taking a verse out of context. This is like someone trying to teach atheism from Psalm 14:1 by saying "See, even the Bible says "There is no God". Numbers 23:19 is not about God saying He's not a man. God is saying, in context, that He is not a liar like humans and He stands by His spoken word. But people still try to use this verse out of context, pretending that the verse stops at "God is not a man," when it continues on to say" ...that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repnt." Your argument started out wrong and therefore ends wrong. You cannot use Numbers 23:19 taken out of context to prove Jesus is not God, justl like you cnanot prove the Bible teaches atheism by misquoting Psalm 14:1. Take a course in Biblical hermeneutics...that should help. :-)

This next one is my second favorite weak argument used against the Deity of Jesus.

Jayshawn's Response: Wow Arthur Daniels can't be serious, here he accuses us of taking a verse out of context. This is something the doctrine of Trinity must do all the time in order to stand. Arthur Daniels erroneoulsy brings up the atheist indeed taking Psalms 14:1 out of context to prvoe there not being any God. Now obviously we sohould see that the atheist argument would be in erro simbly because it says "The fool said in his heart.." so yes indeed according to the fool there is no Elohim. Here yes, there is no Elohim but with the completion of context, that point is made by fools.

Now lets look at nUmbers 23:19, here Arthur Daniels makes a point that the context is dealing with Elohim not being a liar like humans but that he can become one and yet still be Elohim as Arthur would have us see this verse. NO matter how you want to look at the verse, it must be realize that Elohim said he is not a man period. now it is by this fact mentinoed that the other point in the context is developed, "that i should lie". So yes we must keep this altogether in context which Arthur would have us leading to some point that is not made "He is not a liar like humans" that is not what HE said.

He could have easily said "I am not a liar like men" but he is making a stronger point when HE says "I'm not a man..." so it is not even possible for HIM to lie for HE is not of our nature, HE is not human, nor was HE to come as some Human/Elohim which is totally against scripture, nowhere mentioned in scripture, and is of a pagan origin as mentioned in Acts 14:11-18. In that context Shaul calls such an idea of gods coming in the likeness of man a vain idea which derived from a pagan not scriptural mindset. If I was making a statement that "I'm not a woman that I should get pregnant" then that's what I mean. I'm making a point which makes brings the other point to an impossibility.

I am telling you I'm not a woman so that based on that first FACT, I'm telling you that the second point is not possible. I am telling you I'm not woman so that based on that first FACT, I'm telling you that the second point is not possible. There is no way that I'm saying "I'm not like woman that I should get pregnant" or else I would say that. No from that statement you would understand that first, I'm not a woman and then based on that part of the context you should know that I don't get pregnant. YES you can indeed separate that context in understanding that Jayshawn is saying he is not a woman. Justa as it would be strange for me to all of a sudden become one in the future so it is with Elohim. It is not of scriptural origin the idea of Elohim becoming man, plain and simple.

Weak Argument #3

Anti-Trinitarian: "Scripture says no man has seen God (John 1:18). People saw Jesus the man. Therefore Jesus cannot be God."

Trinitarian response: You fail to understand John 1:18 and what is means within the context of a holistic view of the Bible. Moses did see God's "back" according to Scripture (Exodus 33:20-23). Others have "seen" God in the Old Testament times (Exodus 24:11). Therefore, this passage cannot mean God was never seen at all or in any sense.

But the main point that is overlooked is the fact that this passage does not say "no one has seen God in human flesh at any time." The first premise of the anti-trinitarian argument is based on a misinterpretation of the verse and an addition to the verse, i.e., the idea that the passage refers to "God in human flesh." Jesus is revealed as God manifested in the flesh in 1:1, 14 and 1 Timothy 3:16. john 1:18 simply means no one has seen God in the totality of His being as a Spirit, or His "face," if you will. You need to cleary understand a text before trying to quote it to disprove the Deity of Jesus. Your argument fails logically and theologically.

The next one gets the prestigious "weakest argument in the universe" award for being so logically fallacious that it boggles the mind that people still try to use it as if it proved anything:

Jayshawn's Response: Here's more poor example of trying to disprove something. Arthur Daniels here brings up the fact that Moshe seen Elohim's back side in Shemoth 33:20-23 here it is:"But my face, HE continued, "you cannot se, because a human being cannot look at me and remain alive. 21 Here, "he said,"is a place near mel stand on the rock. 22 When my GLORY passes by, I will put you inside a crevice in the rock and cover you with my hand, until I have passed by 23 Then I will remove my hand, and you will see my back, but my face is not to be seen."

Now YHVH said a human cannot see HIM and live period, so I ask how can someone give wiggle room to say that HE can be seen in human flesh or that HE can even become human flesh? Notice that v. 22 speaks of HIS glory/presence passing and nothing about HE HIMSELF passing. Can we assume that HIS literal hand touch Moshe and put him in the crevice of the rock? moshe was granted to see the back part of HIS presence/glory not HIS literal backside as YHVH is spirit. Yeshua even reiterates that no man has seen Elohim at ANY TIME. Was Yeshua a little off in his statement?

Now if we have clear statements made by YHVH himself and also Yeshua that EL has not been seen by human eyes then is it not foolery to turn around and assume that HE was seen in Exodus 24:11? Again the context speaks of HIS glory/presence surrounding the moutain, they indeed saw the glory of Elohim to some extent but they did not see Elohim in a full literal sense.

Now Arthur uses 1 Timothy 3:16 as proving that people have seen Elohim but nowhere in the text does it says such. In the text it speaks of Elohim being manifested in the flesh (Yeshua), now lets look at what's specifically being said here. Now without controvery nor debate we KNOW that Yeshua indeed manifested, delcared, showed to us EL in the flesh. however he was NOT that which he was manifesting as a perfect image. Yeshua was the perfect reflection of EL's character, attitude, mentality, etc. because he was GIVEN the spirit of EL without measure.

Being the image never implies being that exact itme, being the reflection of EL does not mean being EL yourself. It's quite the contrary in that the image is never the actual item but the REPRESENTATION of that item. We too are images of EL but we are broken images of what HE is. There's no weight whatsover to support the idea that EL came down into decayed, mortal, unclean, and sinful flesh. 1 Timothy 3:16 is not revealing some new thing in supposedly implying that EL was in the flesh. The text agrees with all of scripture that EL was indeed revealed to us by Yeshua as he walked on the face of the earth.

Weak Argument #4

Anti-Trinitarian: "The word "Trinity" isn't even in the Bible. Therefore, the doctrine cannot be true or biblical."

Trinitarian response: By that same faulty logic the doctrine of monotheism cannot be true or biblical either, since that specific English word does not appear in the Bible. The English word "Bible" doesn't appear in the Bible either. The word "ethics" doesn't appear in the Bible either. But doesn't the Bible teach ethics? The word "morals" isn't in the Bible. But doesn't the Bible teach morals? There are many more examples to prove this point, but I think this is enough.

When people use this argument they are committing the classic logical fallacy known as the non sequitur, which simply means that their conclusion does not logically follow from their premise. Just because the term "Trinity" isn't in the Bible, this, in and of itself, does not prove that the doctrine is not systematically laid out in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. It clearly is, and that's why the doctrine exists.

And actually, if I wanted to get technical and a little bit semantical, the word "Trinity" is in the Bible, just not in combined form. The Greek word we get our English "tri" from is found in the Bible many times in the New Testament (Matthew 26:34; Acts 11:10). And the word "unity" can also be found in Ephesians 4:13, translated from the Greek "henoteta." But I digress... :-)

Jayshawn's Response: These points that he challenge by far don’t scratch the surface of why we Non-Trinitarians reject such a false paganized doctrine.

Weak Argument # 5:

Biblical Unitarian Website: "Contradiction # 2: God cannot be tempted (James 1:13 Jesus was tempted in every way (Hebrews 4:15. Therefore Jesus cannot be God."

Trinitarian Response: This alleged contradiction has many flaws and is partially based on the same invalid assumption as alleged contradiction #1. First, the assumption here is that the text in James refers to "God in human flesh." But the text nor the context makes a reference to God incarnate.

Second, the text in Hebrews is speaking about Jesus, who has been revealed in Scripture as God incarnate, in His high priestly ministry before the Father. While Jesus was God incarnate on earth it would seem reasonable to understand that He could be "tempted" and suffer as we are tempted and suffer. This makes Him a better high priest who can "sympathize" with us, as Hebrews 4:15 points out.

Third, and finally, Jesus is recognized in Scripture (John as the only unique (monogenes in Greek) "Son" of God (meaning He had the unique nature of God) and the "Son" of man (meaning He had the nature of a sin-free human). Therefore, Jesus was both God and man while on earth. Jesus in His humanity could be "tempted," but the essence of His Deity within did not allow such temptation to have any real power because He was also God. This is why this apparently normal human being, born of sinful humanity, could live an entire life without sin. This also serves to prove His Deity because it is widely recognized that only God is perfect and sinless. And the sinless life of Jesus is what you would expect of God who became man. This alleged contradiction is fatally flawed and fails to prove anything except that people can make up imaginative arguments based on their assumptions and misunderstandings of Scripture.

This alleged contradiction has many flaws and is partially based on the same invalid assumption as alleged contradiction #1. First, the assumption here is that the text in James referes to "God in human flesh." But the text nor teh contrext makes a reference to God incarnate.

Jayshawn’s Response: What kind of bogus contrived argument is this, this is literally an example of this man playing the gymnastics game with text. Seeing how the scripture counters Arthur’s idea of a El/Human he comes up with a whole new rule. Arthur Daniels says it is fallacy some of the points he has countered and then he comes up with this counter-point? So since the scriptures does not mention how things apply to EL in the flesh then it must not be a problem. First, of course the scriptures does not dive into unnecessary points they do not exist to begin with. Of course scriptures don’t deal with that which is false.

Of course it’s not going to say EL in the flesh can be tempted, EL can’t be tempted in regular form, and man can be tempted. What kind of argument is this, the simple and factual point is this; EL cannot not be tempted because there is no evil in him, a man can be tempted because he has evil within him that can be enticed. The point is WELL taken that Yeshua could not have been EL because he was indeed tempted. I still would love to see someone explain how one can be 100% EL and 100% Man which both by nature are diametrically opposed to one another. This doctrine is just so insane but Trinitarians will have you confessed to such under some guise of believing the impossible.

I would like to bring up the trickery used by Trinitarians against us. They usually say that we are limiting what EL can do by saying that HE is not some three in one person EL and that he did not and would not take on human form. However they by their own judgment are guilty of the same since they swear there’s no way a full blown human can be simply given the ability (via the spirit without measure) to live perfect before EL. They see this as some impossible idea we Non-Trinitarians hold. If it is said that EL cannot be tempted but a man can then it must follow that one cannot be both at the same time. You cannot be 100% man while possessing 100% divinity and vice versa. How can one be a man like us but posses some out of human character such as being divine?? How can EL be EL but someone have the frailities of humanity. That in itself either way would negate the other period.

If Yeshua was tempted (which scriptures testify he was) then he cannot be 100% El because EL in his nature cannot be tempted period. Oh but I can see the twisted escape now, a trinitarian would respond “Oh but that was his human nature being tempted and not his EL nature”. So are they saying that at times he was 100% Man and at times he was 100% EL which would still make him 100% Non-Human thus bringing in many contradictions?? Can EL stop being EL at anytime and still be EL? According to Trinitarians they don’t even try to figure it out they just call it all a nice mystery and that anyone daring to understand Meshiach and also EL’s nature are doing themselves an injustice.

What Heb. 4:15 actually points out is that he was fully human thus being able to fully understand all aspects of humanity while presenting himself a mediator before EL. To suggest that EL took on a 100% human nature is quite erroneous concerning the nature of EL but many Trinitarians don’t bother pondering such, they just yield themselves to what they call “The Mystery” of EL. Indeed it is a mystery from it’s mother Mystery Babylon. Let’s move on.

Thirdly we deal with his final point in this particular argument which is severely flawed and manmade, let’s examine. First he says that Yeshua is mentioned as being the only begotten son of EL in John 3:16this is true. There are five passages of scriptures that make this statement John 1:14, 18, , 18, and 1 John 4:9. Nowhere in these passages those it state that this phrase “only begotten son of EL” is defined as saying he had a unique nature of EL. What terrible is that most Trinitarians don’t follow the rules of witness, in other words there must be at least two to three witnesses on a matter, especially matters like this. Trinitarians can find NO references in scriptures that state that such a phrase equates to him having a unique nature of EL. So the question begs, “Where did Arthur find such a rule?” the burden of proof lies on Arthur to show where this is stated from scripture.

Amazingly enough we encounter the ever repeating “snowball effect”, in other words, based on a false premise “only begotten son” equals being a human/EL. Arthur as you can see above proves further errors and false teachings not based on scriptural support but upon a false premise which also carried NO SCRIPTURAL backing. It is clear that what I highlighted above is of a manmade origin/theology having nothing to do with scripture and truth. I will not at this time deal with the subject of Yeshua being the only begotten son of EL at this moment. Let it be known however that Arthur is wrong in his unscriptural assumption that it deals with Yeshua being a Human/EL creature walking the face of the earth.

As most false doctrines go there are plenty of puff, smoke, fumes, and great statements in them but however there is no truth or backing to them. Lots of bang is found but no buck. Plenty of comments but no truth, plenty of hype but no content. As you can see above Arthur had lots to say to back his own point but no scriptural origin which to prove it true. Don’t get lost in his many words, pay attention to where is his supposed truths coming from; church, traditions, or scripture.

Weak Argument #6

Biblical Unitarian: Contradiction #3 God is Spirit (John 4:24). But Jesus is not a Spirit, but flesh and blood (Luke 24:39)"

Trinitarian Response: Here we have several problems. First, there is that sneaky assumption again that John 4:24 speaks of "God" in every sense for all time, including speaking of God incarnate. We have already seen that such an assumption is not valid.

Second, this passage in context is not so much making an ontological statement about the "physical" nature of God as a spiritual Being but a statement about the proper form of worshipping the Father (see verses 20-23). Jesus was making the point that true worship is not about the place of worship but about the quality and character of the one worshipping, i.e, in spirit and in truth.

Third, even as God incarnate, Jesus did have "a spirit" cloaked in His flesh and bones according to Luke 23:46. We also know that Jesus had "glory" as a spiritual Being with the Father before the world was created (John 17:5). Therefore we cannot pretend that Jesus had no "spirit" or that He had not long before creation been united with the Father as Spirit"