In Biblical Unitarianism, Jesus Christ is a mere man, maximally inspired by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, a mere man died on the Cross, was resurrected, and now sits at God's right hand. How does this differ soteriologically from the orthodox Trinity doctrine? As I understand it, in this doctrine, the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single immortal (cannot die) and immutable (cannot suffer) Being with a single mind, will, and consciousness. Therefore, the Son did not die because he cannot die. Chalcedon explained this as that Jesus Christ has or had two natures and only the human nature died. So, in both Biblical Unitarianism and the orthodox Trinity doctrine, it was a mere man who suffered and died on the Cross. Is there a difference between the two systems in terms of why Jesus had to die? Some of the comments below deny that the Trinitarian God is a single Being with a single mind, will, and consciousness. Therefore, I add the following: The orthodox Trinity doctrine is often explained to people by saying that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one God existing as three Persons. The phrase “three Persons” implies three distinct minds. However, in the Trinity doctrine, the Father, Son, and Spirit share a single mind and, therefore, a single will, consciousness, and self-awareness. They do not each have a distinct mind. For example: > “When today we speak of person in the plural, we think almost > necessarily, because of the modern meaning of the word, of several > spiritual centers of activity [minds], of several subjectivities > [biases, views] and liberties [freedoms].” (Karl Rahner, a leading > Catholic scholar, in ‘The Trinity) > > “There are not three of these in God. … There are not three > consciousnesses; rather the one consciousness subsists in a threefold > way. There is only one real consciousness in God, which is shared by > the Father, Son, and Spirit.” (Rahner) > > “The element of consciousness … does not belong to it [the Person] in > our context [the official doctrine of the {Catholic} Church].” > (Rahner) > > “There exists in God only one power, one will, only one self-presence. > … Hence self-awareness is not a moment which distinguishes the divine > "persons" one from the other.” (Rahner) > > “Each Person shares the Divine will … that come from a mind. … Each > Person's self-awareness and consciousness is not inherent to that > Person (by nature of that Person being that Person) but comes from the > shared essence.” (Rahner) > > “We must, of course, say that Father, Son, and Spirit possess > self-consciousness and that each one is aware of the other two > ‘persons’. But precisely this self-consciousness … comes from the > divine essence, is common as one to the divine persons.” (Rahner). Lewis Ayres stated similarly that the Persons do not “possess different natures, wills, or activities.” > “We can now try to summarize how pro-Nicenes conceive of a divine > person in the abstract. … We cannot … assume that they possess > different natures, wills, or activities within the one Godhead.” > (Ayres, p. 295) [Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and its legacy, An Approach to > Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004] Consequently, leading Trinitarian scholars confirm that it is misleading to describe the Father, Son, and Spirit as “Persons.” > “The champions of the Nicene faith … developed a doctrine of God as a > Trinity, as one substance or ousia who existed as three hypostases, > three distinct realities or entities (I refrain from using the > **misleading** word' Person'), three ways of being or modes of existing as > God.” (Hanson Lecture ) > > “By the conventions of the late fourth century, first formulated in > Greek by the ‘Cappadocian Fathers’, these three constituent members of > what God is came to be referred to as hypostases (‘concrete > individuals’) or, more **misleadingly** for us moderns, as prosōpa > (‘persons’).” (Anatolios, xiii) [Khaled Anatolios, Retrieving Nicaea, > 2011] The orthodox Trinity doctrine is sometimes explained, using Greek terms from the fourth century, as one ousia (substance) and three hypostases. But the term hypostasis is also not appropriate because, while the Father, Son, and Spirit in the Trinity doctrine are a single Being with one mind, the Greek term hypostasis means something that exists distinctly from other things: > An "individual existence” (Hanson, p. 193); "Distinct individuality" > (Hanson, p. 53) "Distinct reality" (Hanson, p. 190); “Something that > really exists, and exists in itself, as distinguished from an accident > or a quality;” (Lienhard) "Distinct personalities," "distinct > existences," and "to be existent." (Litfin) “Concrete individuals” > (Anatolios, xiii) In the Trinity doctrine, the distinction between the Father, Son, and Spirit is invisible to the created universe. The creation only sees one Being: > “By the last quarter of the fourth century, halting Christian attempts > … had led … to what later generations generally think of as ‘the > doctrine of the Holy Trinity’: the formulated idea that the God … is > Father and Son and Holy Spirit, as one reality or substance, > **operating outward in creation always as a unit**y, yet always internally differentiated by the relationships of origin that Father > and Son and Holy Spirit have with one another.” (Anatolios, xiii) > > “The distinctions between them are real: but we do not know what it is > to exist distinctly in this state.” (Ayres, p. 295) So, if the terms 'Persons' and 'hypostases' are misleading and the distinction between them is invisible, how should the 'Persons' in the Trinity doctrine be described? Hanson refers to the Father, Son, and Spirit as “three ways of being or modes of existing as God:” > “The champions of the Nicene faith … developed a doctrine of God as a > Trinity, as one substance or ousia who existed as three hypostases, > three distinct realities or entities (I refrain from using the > misleading word' Person'), **three ways of being or modes of existing as > God**.” (Hanson Lecture ) One might respond and say, yes, that may be the orthodox Trinity doctrine, but I believe in a Trinity of three Persons with three distinct minds. That would be consistent with the Bible, but if the three Persons are equal, there would be three Gods (Tritheism). As soon as one speaks of three Minds, two of the Minds must be subordinate to the other; otherwise, one has three Gods. But to admit that the Son and Spirit are subordinate to the Father would be 'Arianism.' To avoid both Tritheism and Arianism, the orthodox Trinity doctrine has to say that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single Being with a single mind. 

**The argument** 1. If X saves, X must be God. 2. Jesus saves. 3. Therefore, Jesus must be God. **Question** According to Biblical Unitarians, what's wrong with this argument? _____ **Related questions** - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/91343/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/91318/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83087/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/81155/50422

Proverbs 30:2-4 says: > Surely I am too stupid to be a man. I have not the understanding of a man. I have not learned wisdom, nor have I knowledge of the Holy One. Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son's name? Surely you know! There is a related question here: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/38937/who-is-he-and-what-is-the-name-of-his-son-proverbs-304 and, though the question seeks to ascertain the name and existence of the son from OT sources alone, many of the answers indicate that the trinitarian view incorporating the NT renders Jesus as either the one who fulfills the first 5 questions or as the son. A few answers and comments seem to hold that the questions are entirely rhetorical and the point is to not answer them. How do Biblical Unitarians answer the six questions posed in these verses? 1) Who has ascended to heaven and come down? 2) Who has gathered the wind in his fists? 3) Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? 4) Who has established all the ends of the earth? 5) What is his name? 6) What is his son's name?

Deuteronomy 33:26 is > "There is none like the God of Jeshurun, who rides the heavens to your > aid, and the clouds in His majesty." Biblical Unitarians take Daniel 7:13 to be a Messianic prophecy, and it has > "I saw One like the Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven. He > approached the Ancient of Days and was led into His presence." If the Son of Man = God, then the fact the Son of Man in coming with the clouds of heaven is easy to reconcile with Deut. 33:26, where it seems to describe an exclusive activity of God - riding the clouds. How do Biblical Unitarians, who believe the Son of Man is a divine figure in a sense, but not God, reconcile these two verses?

The name of the LORD is sacred and to be given to God alone. This is seen in Isaiah 42:8: > “I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols.” ‭‭‬(‭ESV‬‬) Along with Psalm 148:13: > Let them praise the name of the Lord, for his name alone is exalted; his majesty is above earth and heaven. (ESV) However, in Philippians 2:9 we read that: > Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, (ESV) How can Jesus receive the name above every other name unless he already is God?

Jesus' most important commandment is the following: >Jesus answered him, *“The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, YHWH our Elohim, YHWH is 1. And you shall love YHWH your Elohim with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment."* Those who reject the triune theory do so because we interpret the scriptures to show a clear distinction between the person of YHWH (the 1 God), and His only begotten, the Son of God. The most well known words of Jesus are recorded in John 3:16. This is only 1 simple example of Jesus making a distinction between himself and God. John 3:16 >For **God** so loved the world that **He** gave ***His** only begotten Son*, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. Throughout scripture this theme holds very consistent and can be shown with countless verses. There are too many to list them all. ***What are the BEST scriptures to support the interpretation that Jesus is not the same person as God (YHWH), but rather the Son of God and a completely separate person?*** -- Note: In the context of this question, verses that make a distinction between YHWH and Jesus would be greater support than verses that make a distinction between the Father and Jesus (even though we know the Father is YHWH according to this perspective).

The top answer currently on the question Would a person baptized by a Biblical Unitarian church be considered a Christian by the Catholic Church? links to a document Valid baptisms reference list from the Catholic diocese of Columbus which lists which denominational baptisms the diocese considers to be valid. One that is considered invalid is the Christadelphian baptism. Part of the requirement for a valid baptism by the Catholic Church is the phrase > "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the > Holy Spirit" which is very similar to Matthew 28:19's > "Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them > in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" What is the wording Christadelphians use when baptizing?

Hebrews 1:6 (NIV) says: > when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.” My question is for those who **don’t** believe Jesus to be “the only true God”: Why the command that the firstborn should be worshipped by God's angels, something that God said in clear terms, He only allows for Himself? Exodus 34:14 says: >Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. Quotes from Unitarian or Jehovah’s Witnesses sources or scholars making sense of this are welcome.

John 2:18-22 says: > 18 So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” 21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken. (ESV) The temple is the place where God's presence dwelled, see Exodus 25:8: > 8 “Then have them make a sanctuary for me, and I will dwell among them. If Jesus' body is the temple, in what sense does God dwell in the temple according to Biblical Unitarians?

1 Timothy 3:16 seems like a pretty straightforward knock-out punch for Trinitarianism. > "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was > manifest in the flesh[.]" (KJB) How do Biblical Unitarians, who hold Jesus is not God but also hold to a strong view of scripture, explain this verse?

Jeff Deuble in Christ Before Creeds says (p. 33-34) > The significant controversies about the Messiah that were strongly > contested in the New Testament were: his death by crucifixion, his > resurrection, and his subsequent ascension and glorification. [...] As > you read through the book of Acts you will discover that these are the > three facts that the apostles continue to preach and debate, > especially with Jews (Acts 2:22-36, 3:17-26, 5:29-32, 10:34-43, > 13:26-41, 17:2-4, 17:29-31, 26:19-23). [...] These basic > Christological tenets differed from previous perceptions, so they were > strongly proclaimed and debated from the inception of the church on > the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-36). Yet, he continues > Nowhere is there reference to a debate over Jesus being "fully human > and fully God," or being himself God or on the same level as God. It > doesn't appear at all on the landscape of first-century church > history, whereas it looms large, at center stage in the church history > of the fourth and fifth centuries. > > This silence is remarkable because the early church was strongly > Jewish and the Jews were strongly monotheistic. Any suggestion that > Jesus was *Yahweh*, or a part of *Yahweh*, or even equal to *Yahweh*, > would have been vehemently resisted, would it not? **This silence is > certainly difficult to explain if, as claimed by some, Trinitarian > doctrine existed from the outset, from the earliest days of the > church.** How do those who hold that Trinitarian doctrine existed from the earliest days of the Church respond to the sort of argument Deuble lays out here?

In this Biblical Unitarian answer to a question asking after differences in the way that Catholics view Mary vs. how Biblical Unitarians view Jesus there appears the following: > Like Mary in Catholicism with special 'veneration' or devotion, there is an attitude towards Jesus which others might consider 'worship' and inappropriate towards anyone except God, and which is not equal to other humans in heaven. Catholics insist that the veneration they direct towards Mary is not the same as the worship that belongs to God alone. Of course, for Catholics, God indicates the three persons of the Trinity. Given the block-quote above my question is: Do Biblical Unitarians worship Jesus or only venerate him in the same sense in which Catholics venerate Mary?

It has been clearly asserted by Biblical Unitarians that Jesus Christ had no actual existence anywhere prior to his birth in Bethlehem. It has also been clearly asserted that Scriptures which appear to present some kind of pre-existence for Jesus (John's prologue, for instance) are really referring to his "notional existence" within the mind of God. There are many questions and answers which flesh this out. Here are a few: how-do-those-who-believe-that-jesus-is-a-created-being-understand-the-verses-whi , why-don-t-unitarians-believe-that-jesus-christ-pre-existed-before-incarnation , according-to-biblical-unitarians-how-much-does-notionalism-encompass-in-john The general idea is that God has always had the plan to cause Jesus' birth and this plan is what is referred to as the Word in John's Gospel. The Word also must incorporate the "plan in God's mind" for literally everything since all things were brought into existence through this same Word. For instance, God had the "plan" for light and when He said "Let light be" that plan was actualized. When we are told that the Word became flesh it is here that the "plan" of God regarding Jesus was actualized and where Jesus went from "notional" to "actual" existence. This Biblical Unitarian article presents a Word which encompasses all of God's plans and, indeed, God's rational thought itself. My question therefore is: According to Biblical Unitarians, when the Word became flesh (when the plan was actualized) was it *all* of the Word or *part* of the Word which became flesh?

Starting with John 1:3, "All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." Colossians 1:16, "For by or in Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created by Him and for Him." Then there is Hebrews 1:10 where Jesus' own Father states, "And Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of Thy hands;" The writer of Hebrews is quoting Psalm 102:25, "Of old Thou didst found the earth; And the heavens are the work of Thy hands." This Psalm is the prayer of an afflicted man and at verse 24 the man says, "I say, "O my God, do not take me away in the midst of my days etc." Finally, Revelation 3:14, "And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write, The Amen the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, say this;" In view of these Biblical facts about Jesus Christ before He was actually born please reconcile all of this with Isaiah 44:24, "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens BY MYSELF, And spreading out the earth ALL ALONE."

The bible teaches many things about Jesus. - Where he came from - Who he came from - When he originated - What he was How do we know what the most important aspect of Jesus is from the bible with reference to salvation?

In the third chapter of Daniel, 3 Jewish men get thrown into a fiery furnace. The King who had them thrown in looks and sees a fourth person walking around with them in the fire. This fourth person is identified by the polytheistic King as looking *like unto a son of the gods*: > He answered and hath said, 'Lo, I am seeing four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like to a son of the gods.' - Daniel 3:25 (YLT) The men who were thrown into the fire had previously claimed faith that God, if he so chose, could rescue them from the fire: > Lo, it is; our God whom we are serving, is able to deliver us from a > burning fiery furnace; and from thy hand, O king - Daniel 3:17 (YLT) It is likely that this confidence was built in part upon a direct promise from God issued in Isaiah 43: > And now, thus said Jehovah, Thy Creator, O Jacob, and thy Fashioner, O Israel, Be not afraid, for I have redeemed thee, I have called on thy name—thou art Mine. When thou passest into waters, I am with thee, And into floods, they do not overflow thee, When thou goest into fire, thou art not burnt, And a flame doth not burn against thee. - v. 1-2 The promise is that in the fire they are not burnt because "I am with thee". Jehovah uses a first person singular pronoun. Later in Isaiah 43 Jehovah makes it clear that He alone is Savior: > I—I am Jehovah, And besides Me there is no saviour. - v.11 I understand the notion of proxy, and that God could still be considered the only Savior even though sending a Savior who is not Himself, but the promise in Isaiah is that God Himself with be with them in water, flood, and fire. Whom do Biblical Unitarians say is seen by Nebuchadnezzar in the fiery furnace with the three Jews?

From what I understand, Biblical Unitarians believe that the pre-incarnational existence of Jesus (as trinitarians propose it) is actually a notional existence in the mind of God. In other words, the Logos was not a person but only the notion in God's mind (sure foreknowledge or idea) of a person. An answer to this related question , "Do Biblical Unitarians teach a current, "notional", glory of Jesus?", indicates that Biblical Unitarians view Jesus, in John 17:5, as asking for the notional glory that he had with the Father prior to his birth to be made into a literal glory. In other words, although Jesus possessed only a notional glory prior to his birth (commensurate with his notional existence in the mind of the Father), Jesus now possesses actual glory (commensurate with his actual existence at the right hand of the Father). However, in John 17:5, Jesus appears to define the glory that he had before, the glory he is asking to be glorified with again (or have actualized, as B.U. might say), as the glory of the Father's own self: > 'And now, glorify me, Thou Father, with Thyself, with the glory that I had before the world was, with Thee; (YLT) There are some translations which render this as "..Father, in Thy presence.." but this appears to be a departure from the text rather than a clarification: >Together with the second person personal pronoun σε (se), meaning you or thee, the reflexive pronoun σεαυτου (seautou), meaning of thyself, or yourself. If Jesus had a notional existence accompanied by a notional glory, and if the notional glory he had was the glory of the Father's own self, wouldn't that mean that the Father's glory was notional? How do Biblical Unitarians view the glory of the Father's own self that Jesus claims he was previously glorified with and that Jesus asked to be returned to him?

1. All men are sinful. 2. If Jesus is not God, he is a man. 3. Thus, if Jesus is a man, he is sinful. 4. Jesus was not sinful. 5. Thus Jesus must be more than a man. Premise 1 is merely an acceptance of Romans 3:23. Premise 2 is what I think the BU position is, but feel free to correct me. Notice that for premise 5 I don’t explicitly state that Jesus is God, but I do state that he must be something more than just a man. So my question for the Biblical Unitarian is this: is my argument flawed, or is Jesus more than a man? If so, what?

From what I understand, Biblical Unitarians believe that the pre-incarnational existence of Jesus (as trinitarians propose it) is actually a notional existence in the mind of God. In other words, the Logos was not a person but only the notion (sure foreknowledge) of a person. In John 17:5 Jesus says: > And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. It appears that the glory Jesus is asking to be returned to is the glory of the Father's own self. I doubt anyone thinks the Father's glory is notional. Do Biblical Unitarians think Jesus was asking to be glorified notionally just like he was before the world was? If so, is he now glorified only notionally at the right hand of God just like before?

> 1 Corinthians 1:2 "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:" So, if Paul teach to call the name of Jesus Christ, how do Unitarians understand this verse, while only praying and calling upon the father?