The word 'Saviour' (σωτήρ, *soter*) is used twenty-four times in the Greek New Testament scriptures. Eight times, this refers to 'God'. Sixteen times it refers to 'Jesus', 'Christ', 'Jesus Christ', 'Lord Jesus Christ', and 'The Son'. One notable time, the wording used is 'the great God and Saviour of us, Jesus Christ', Titus 2:13, and here I am quoting the original, literal, in which the Greek idiom known as 'Sharp's rule' should be noted. No other person is called a 'saviour' in the Greek New Testament. Moses is referred to as a 'deliverer', the proper translation for λυτρωτῆς, *lutrotes*, in Acts 7:35, in regard to a national, not a spiritual, deliverance: and Noah is said to have 'saved' his household (from a flood, not a spiritual salvation) in Hebrews 11:7 when God was the Saviour by his warning Noah of the future flood. The salvation of one's own soul ; the salvation from one's own, personal sins; the salvation of oneself in regard to the sin which entered into the world and humanity in general; the salvation of one's body in resurrection: all are the province, solely, of 'God our Saviour' and of 'the God and Saviour of us, Jesus Christ.' In the light of this evidence, why do some suggest that Jesus Christ is not 'God' when the evidence appears to be, very substantially, in favour of the opposite conclusion? The list of eight references to 'God our Saviour': Lk 1:47, 1 Ti 1:1, 2:3, 4:10, Titus 1:3, 2:10, 3:4, Jude 25. The list of sixteen references to Christ as Saviour: Lk 2:11, Jn 4:42, Ac 5:31, 13:23, Eph 5:23, Phil 3:20, 2 Ti 1:10, Titus 1:4, 2:13, 3:6, 2 Pe 1:1, 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, 3:18, 1 Jo 4:14. -------------------------------------- All references and quotations relate to the TR Greek text and to the KJV translation of that text.

Master Jesus was crucified on a tree, according to Apostle Peter. >**Acts 5:30** 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and **hanged on a tree**. >**Acts 10:39** 39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and **hanged on a tree**: >**Acts 13:29** 29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, **they took him down from the tree**, and laid him in a sepulchre. >**1 Peter 2:24** 24 Who his own self bare our sins in **his own body on the tree**, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. On some accounts, He was crucified on the cross. >**Matthew 27:40** 40 And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down **from the cross.** >**Matthew 27:42** 42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down **from the cross**, and we will believe him. >**Mark 15:30** 30 Save thyself, and come down **from the cross.** >**Mark 15:32** 32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now **from the cross**, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him. >**Luke 23:26** 26 And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and **on him they laid the cross**, that he might bear it after Jesus. >**John 19:19** 19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it **on the cross**. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

As far as I know [there are 4 Gospels](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/18703/what-is-a-gospel-and-how-many-gospels-are-there-in-the-catholic-bible) : Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I am an ex-Christian (currently atheist) who had a debate with a Muslim about a few discrepancies between the Qur'an and the Bible. The Muslims believe that 1. Haman worked for Pharaoh and is building babel tower 2. Mary was a sibling of Aaron 3. Jesus is given "gospel". As a non-Muslim and atheist, I of course think that Muhammad simply made a mistake. Perhaps he didn't get the story right or wasn't consistent with his sources. But of course Muslim apologists will claim that it's a misunderstanding anyway: different Haman, different meaning of sibling, and different gospel. The 3rd point is more interesting though. My Muslim friend pointed out that gospels *already* EXISTED before the Bible was written: - [Mark 1:14](https://biblehub.com/mark/1-14.htm) - [Matthew 4:23](https://biblehub.com/matthew/4-23.htm) - [Luke 8:1](https://biblehub.com/luke/8-1.htm) So it's a bit tricky. In Indonesia the word for "gospel" is "injil". I wonder where that word came from. Muslims seem to think that Jesus got the "gospel" like Muhammad got the Qur'an. But I think that's just not the case. The Gospels we have now, I understand them to be Jesus' late biographies, a bit like Hadith in Islam. However, the fact that the word "gospel" DOES show up in the Gospels themselves is intriguing. **What "gospel" was Jesus preaching because the Gospels as books weren't even written when he was living?** It looks to me that he was a Rabbi who preached typical Judaism stuff that might or might not be reinterpreted by his followers to be something much more than that.

### Introduction The Hebrew Bible contains commands for several types of sacrifices. The sacrificial system encompasses a variety of offerings (Hebrew: korbanot) that serve different purposes. These sacrifices, described primarily in Leviticus and Numbers, includes animal sacrifices (bulls, goats, sheep, birds) as well as grain, oil, and wine offerings, all carried out by the priests at the altar of the Tabernacle/Temple. Each type of offering had specific requirements and a distinct purpose. Some were for atonement of sin, others for thanksgiving or purification: | **Sacrifice (Hebrew / English Name)** | **What Was Offered** | **Who Offered / Performed** | **Purpose of Sacrifice** | **How the Sacrifice Was Carried Out** | | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Olah (עולה) – Burnt Offering** | A male animal without blemish – could be a bull, ram, goat, or for the poor, a turtledove or pigeon. | Voluntarily by an individual, performed by a priest. | This is a general sacrifice, performed daily. It is also used as a sin sacrifice on the appointment of a priest. | The animal is slaughtered and its blood splashed on the altar by the priest. The entire carcass was completely **burned on the altar** (nothing eaten by anyone, symbolizing total surrender to God). The hide went to the priests. | | **Minchah (מנחה) – Grain / Meal Offering** | Fine flour or unleavened baked goods (loaves or cakes) made from wheat or barley, mixed with olive oil and frankincense, and seasoned with salt. No yeast or honey was used. | Usually a **voluntary** offering by an individual (often accompanying burnt or peace offerings); a priest handled it on the altar and ate the remainder. (If the priest himself offered it, it was entirely burned.) | **Thanksgiving and dedication** of one’s labor and produce to God. A non-blood offering symbolizing the dedication of daily sustenance and work. | A **handful** (with all the frankincense) was **burned on the altar** as a memorial portion. The rest was **eaten by the priests** in a holy place, unless it was a priest’s own offering, in which case it was fully burned. | | **Nesekh (נסך) – Drink Offering** | A libation of **wine** (usually undiluted) poured out on the altar; sometimes water (during festivals). | Performed by the **priest** as part of a larger sacrifice. The wine was brought by the offerer and poured out by the priest. | **Worship and devotion** – honoring God with the “fruit of the vine.” Symbolized joyful self-offering and blessing. | The priest **poured the wine** onto the altar (into special receptacles at its corners). Drink offerings were never offered alone but always alongside burnt and grain offerings. | | **Zevach Shelamim (זבח שלמים) – Peace / Fellowship Offering** | An unblemished animal from the herd or flock (male or female), often with **grains or breads** (both leavened and unleavened). | Offered **voluntarily** by an individual or family (as **thanksgiving**, **vow**, or **freewill** offering). The offerer slaughtered it; **priests** handled the blood and altar portions and received a share of the meat. | **Thanksgiving, fellowship, and celebration** of peace and blessing from God. Expressed gratitude and communion with Him. | The priest **splashed the blood on the altar**; the **fat portions** were **burned** as God’s share. The priest received the **breast** and **right thigh**; the rest was **eaten joyfully** by the offerer and family in a holy place. Leftovers were eaten within 1–2 days. | | **Chatat (חטאת) – Sin / Purification Offering** | Different animals based on the sinner’s status: **bull** (high priest/community), **male goat** (leader), **female goat or lamb** (individual), or **birds/flour** (poor). | **Mandatory** for unintentional sins or ritual impurities (e.g. after childbirth). The sinner laid hands on the animal; the **priest** performed the ritual and blood rites. | **Atonement for unintentional sin** and **purification from impurity**, reconciling the sinner with God. | The offerer **laid hands** on the animal, which was **slaughtered**. The priest **applied blood** to the altar (and sometimes within the Holy Place). The **fat** was burned; **priests ate** the remainder unless it was for the high priest/community, which was **burned outside the camp**. | | **Asham (אשם) – Guilt / Trespass Offering** | A **ram** without blemish (sometimes a lamb), often with a specified value in silver to ensure worthiness. | **Mandatory** for offenses involving **misuse of holy things**, **breach of trust**, **uncertainty of guilt**, or **restitution cases**. The **priest** sacrificed it after confession and repayment by the guilty party. | **Atonement for specific guilt** involving harm to others or desecration of holy things; emphasized **repentance and restitution**. | The offender **confessed and made restitution** (plus 20%) before the sacrifice. The **ram** was slaughtered, its **blood** splashed on the altar, **fat** burned, and the **meat eaten by priests**. Forgiveness was granted after restitution and offering. | | **Korban Pesach (קרבן פסח) – Passover Sacrifice** | A one-year-old **male lamb or goat**, without blemish. | **Mandatory** annual sacrifice for each household on the 14th of Nisan. The **head of household** slaughtered it; **priests** collected and sprinkled the blood. | **Commemoration of Israel’s deliverance from Egypt and the death of the first born**. | The **blood** was splashed on the altar. The lamb was **roasted whole** and **eaten that night** with **unleavened bread and bitter herbs**. Nothing left until morning; no bones broken. All leftovers were **burned**. | | **Parah Adumah (פרה אדומה) – Red Heifer Offering** | A **red heifer** without defect, never yoked. | Performed by a **priest** (e.g. Eleazar) **outside the camp**, on behalf of the whole community. | **Ritual purification from corpse defilement**; not for sin but to produce ashes for the **“water of purification.”** | The **heifer** was **slaughtered outside the camp**; the **priest sprinkled its blood** toward the Tabernacle seven times. The whole carcass was **burned to ashes** with **cedar wood, hyssop, and scarlet wool**. The ashes were stored and later mixed with water and **sprinkled** on those made unclean by contact with the dead. | | **Minchat Kena’ot (מנחת קנאות) – Jealousy / Ordeal Offering** | 1/10 ephah of **barley flour**, no oil or incense (plain). | Brought by a **husband** for a wife suspected of adultery (*sotah*); the **priest** conducted the ordeal and offering. | To **reveal hidden guilt or prove innocence** in suspected adultery; a **judgment ritual**, not atonement. | The priest prepared **bitter water** (holy water, dust, and ink of curses). The woman swore innocence, held the offering, and drank the water. The priest **waved the offering**, burned a **handful** on the altar, and disposed of the rest. If guilty, she was cursed; if innocent, she was unharmed and could conceive. | ### Question Each of these sacrifices has its own purpose and ritual in the Hebrew Bible (atonement for sin, thanksgiving, purification, etc.). Given this background, which specific sacrifice or offering does Jesus’s death on the cross correspond to or fulfill?

I recently found references that suggest both Baptists and Methodists used to believe that Jesus and Michael the Archangel are one and the same. This surprised me because both Baptists and Methodists are Trinitarian and understand Jesus to be the eternal Word of God who was never created. The Bible says that angels are created beings, hence my confusion. Here are some of the references I found: From my Morning and Evening devotionals of Baptist preacher Charles H. Spurgeon (1834-1892) I found this quote (morning October 3) regarding angels, based on Hebrews 1:14, and speaking of the Lord Jesus Christ: >“He it is whose camp is round about them that fear Him; He is the true Michael whose foot is upon the dragon. All hail, Jesus! thou Angel of Jehovah’s presence, to Thee this family offers its morning vows.” From a Spurgeon sermon ‘The Angelic Life’ (22 November 1868) comes this partial quote: >“Our Lord is called an angel. He is the angel of the covenant... We read that Michael and his angels fought against the dragon and his angels, and the dragon was cast down. The fight is going on every day. Michael is the Lord Jesus, the only Archangel.” John Gill, a Baptist pastor (circa 1750) wrote this about Michael the Archangel based on Jude 1:9: >"Yet Michael the Archangel.... By whom is meant, not a created angel, but an eternal one, the Lord Jesus Christ;” I know that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe Jesus, as the Word of God, was created by Jehovah as the mighty spirit creature who was known in heaven as Michael before he came to earth, and that he is still known in heaven as Michael since his resurrection. However, this question is not about the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses, although I welcome any modern, up to date insights they might have about the beliefs of Baptists and Methodists regarding Jesus and Michael. This question is specifically about the beliefs of Baptists and Methodists NOW, as to whether they believe that Jesus and Michael are one and the same, and, if so, how can this be explained in light of the Trinity doctrine. I’m not looking for more old quotes, but for up to date information about Baptist and Methodist beliefs on the person of Jesus and if he is also Michael the archangel. The article 'Who do mainline Protestants believe an “archangel” (such as Michael) to be?' is not specific with regard to what Baptists and Methodists believe about Jesus being Michael the Archangel (or not).

I wonder what the significance is of Jesus having died for our sins, considering that he is God, or at least having known to be God's son. To me right now, that act would have been more significant if Jesus did not believe in an afterlife, let alone believe that he had a significant position in heaven. I am imagining a boss of a company, that decided to also start an internship in that same company. He then lets himself be fired from the internship in order to cover for workers in that department. In the end, he is still the boss and could start another internship, or even fire the person that fired him, or undo the firing entirely. I hope my point is clear, and hope for insight.

I feel silly asking this because I feel like it should be obvious. Why did Jesus need to die for our sins? I am asking because this part of Christianity still confuses me. I thought Judaism taught that we will go to heaven if we believe in Judaism, but after a purification (by fire??) of our earthly sins. So Jesus' dying also guaranteed that we would go to heaven, but weren't believers guaranteed entry into heaven to begin with? So does that mean that Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross so we would not have to go through the purification process? Is this the reason he died on the cross? Otherwise we all could have just become Jews and went through the purification process to go to heaven. Please help me understand what I am missing because I feel this can't be right.

In the beginning of Jesus's ministry, the Pharisees were angered at Jesus but were afraid of what the crowd thought if they were to arrest Jesus. "They looked for a way to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd because the people held that he was a prophet." Matthew 21:46. So, it makes me wonder how they mustered up the courage to arrest Jesus if he became more and more popular. How did they know that if they were to arrest Jesus, the crowd wouldn't turn against them after the display of the crowd just laying down palm trees when Jesus arrived in Jerusalem singing "Hosanna to the Son of David!"?

>Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them - Hebrews 7:25 (KJV) How do Trinitarians who believe that the distinct persons of the Trinity share one will, explain how Jesus is making intercession with God? (A previous answer here on Christianity.SE stated that some Trinitarians believe that the Trinity share a single will, while others believe each has a separate but identical will.) I apologize. I thank you all for your answers. But my question wasn't clear enough, so your answers didn't provide the information I am seeking. So I am re-asking my question .

In John 8:19 (NIV), the Jews ask Jesus: >“Where is your father?” But instead of giving a direct answer to where, Jesus replies: >“You do not know me or my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” Why did Jesus respond with who (about identity/relationship) rather than answering the where they asked? Was this a deliberate redirection of their misunderstanding, or is there a deeper theological reason for this shift in focus?

We read in Mk 3:19-21 (KJV) : > Then the multitude came together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread. But when His own people heard about this, they went out to lay hold of Him, for they said, “He is out of His mind.” One wonders as to why the kith and kin of Jesus made that comment in the initial days of his public life. Did they foresee a security threat from the side of the rulers or the religious hierarchy whom he criticized ? Did they really mean what they said ( "He is out of his mind") , or was it said to find an excuse for not getting involved in the affairs attributable only to him? My question therefore is: **Did the kith and kin of Jesus anticipate a security threat for themselves?** Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

In Matthew 22, after basically frustrating the Pharisees and the Saduccees by answering some really tricky questions, Jesus finally turns the tables on them and asks this question: > 41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?” “The son of David,” they replied. 43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says, 44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.”’[e] 45 If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” The response is silence, and apparent victory: > 46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions. What I understand is this - Jesus is pointing out that the Messiah is both David's son and David's Lord. I get that its a good theological point. But why does it silence his critics?

(the question title isn't quite right; I welcome any better phrasing - it is not intended to sound inflammatory) This is a genuine question, that regularly occurred to me during my youth, and was recently reminded to me by an answer fragment: > ... However, the death of Christ on the Cross is such an infinite payment... I *always* had trouble with this. It is *honestly* not intended to dismiss the suffering of someone being tortured to death, but in the context of Christ as an infinite being in the Trinity, capable of miracles, healing, resurrection and immortal heavenly life, this seems... quite a minor event. And indeed, many many people have suffered similar treatment on all sides of religious quarrel (or non-religious, for that matter). Likewise, the sacrifice of God in "giving up" the Son - again, in the context of a being that is either many thousands of years, or ageless (in that time cannot be applied), a 30-something year stint on the earth (where God is omnipresent anyway) before re-ascending seems... an inconvenient errand rather than truly *giving something up*. It is probably way too late to save my wondering, but what is (/was) the reasoning that I missed on this?

Exactly what God wants to teach us, in describing that Jesus is the only begotten son (only begotten - monogenes), because we see a parallel in generating Eve from Adam's ribs.

In the Gospels, Jesus is portrayed as both fully divine and fully human. This raises the question of whether He exercised attributes like omniscience while living on earth. For example, Philippians 2:6–8 speaks of Christ “emptying Himself” (κένωσις) by taking the form of a servant, which some interpret as a limitation of His divine prerogatives. Luke 2:52 also records that Jesus “grew in wisdom and stature,” suggesting a human process of learning. On the other hand, there are passages where Jesus seems to demonstrate supernatural knowledge, such as knowing people’s thoughts (Mark 2:8; John 1:48). Yet, in Mark 13:32, Jesus says that “no one knows the day or the hour… not even the Son, but only the Father,” which appears to imply a limitation in knowledge. How do Christian theologians reconcile these passages? Did Jesus, as a human, retain omniscience and choose not to use it at times, or did He genuinely limit His knowledge while on earth?

Related answered questions: [Chalcedonianism is a moderate between Nestorianism and Monophysitism?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/19867/is-it-proper-to-state-that-chalcedonianism-is-a-moderate-position-in-between-nes) , [What does it mean that the two natures of Christ cannot be separated?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/31552/what-does-it-mean-that-the-two-natures-of-christ-cannot-be-separated?rq=1) , and [Does the Chalcedonian definition mean Christ has two minds? ](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/66264/does-the-chalcedonian-definition-mean-christ-has-two-minds) Related unanswered question: [How would miaphysites approach monothelitism versus dyothelitism?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/64416/how-would-miaphysites-approach-the-question-of-monothelitism-versus-dyothelitism) I know the Sixth Ecumenical Council affirms the orthodox position of the two wills of Jesus and rejects monothelitism. And the Chalcedonian definition states >One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in **Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably**; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather **the properties of each Nature being preserved**, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; **not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons**, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ. My understanding is that the indivisbility of the two natures means we can't attribute particular adjectives or actions that apply to the Person of Christ to the individual nature, though that may be its source. Such as, it would be incorrect to say that "Jesus' human nature died on the cross, but his divine nature did not." Or even "Jesus' divine nature is omnipotent, but his human nature is not." Though we may know that the source or origin of his omnipotence from his divinity, we cannot attribute omnipotence to Jesus' divine nature but the person as a whole. It seems the Chalcedonian definition supports this, unless "the properties of each Nature being preserved" implies the opposite of that. By "attributing" a property, or perhaps "identifying" a property to be of one nature, I am referring to the accuracy of statements such as "Jesus' human nature slept, but Jesus' divine nature was always awake" (because "God never sleeps", Psalm 121:4). If we can't attribute a property to a particular nature, then we must stop at saying "Jesus slept" (the person of Christ) and cannot say anything in particular about what each individual nature experienced, though we perhaps could say that the origin of Jesus' ability to sleep is from his human nature. The same applies with Jesus' omnipotence. Perhaps we could say that the origin of Jesus' omnipotence is his divine nature, but we can only say that Jesus is omnipotent (not saying 1/2 of his natures is omnipotent). The communication of properties between Jesus and God seem to come into play here, as well. If we can say that Jesus slept, then that means God slept. But, if only His human nature slept while His divine nature was awake, then perhaps we could escape concluding that God slept? Except that the Bible seems to be denote the person of Jesus with actions or adjectives, rather than an individual nature. It seems like this being the case, we could only attribute the will of Jesus to the person of Jesus, and not either individual nature when the two are inseparable. It seems like the same arguments apply for His wills as for various adjectives. "Jesus wouldn't be 'fully' human if he didn't have a human will." "Well, Jesus wouldn't be 'fully' human if he wasn't limited in knowledge, and yet he possesses omnipotence." Or something like that. Take the claim "Jesus can't be fully human without a human will;" why can't Jesus be fully human because He has a will as a person? As in, a will that is attributed to the person of Christ rather than to his individual human nature. I don't get how that wouldn't fulfill the "fully human" requirement. It seems that to say otherwise is just based on how we define what "human" is (which of course would be important). **If we can't attribute adjectives or actions to either individual nature, why can we attribute wills to the individual nature? How is that not separating the two natures that should be indivisible?** From a typical orthodox Trinitarian view, I want to know how this doctrine is properly formulated in light of these concerns, whether through Church creeds or early church fathers or theologians of the day or through someone's explanation. Edit: suggested from comments below, **how do do we know it is acceptable to attribute a property to one nature and not the other given that the two natures are inseparable? What does it mean for them to be inseparable if you can identify properties of each individual nature rather than the Person?**

In the Gospels, Jesus is led into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan (Matthew 4:1–11, Luke 4:1–13). As the Son of God, He would have known in advance both that Satan was coming and the kinds of temptations he would present. For Christians, however, temptations often come suddenly and without forewarning. We usually don’t know in advance what form they will take. My question is: Does Jesus’ foreknowledge of the devil’s tactics set His experience of temptation apart from the temptations Christians face, or should it be understood as fundamentally the same kind of testing?

The Gospels record that at Jesus’ baptism, the Holy Spirit descended on Him like a dove (Matthew 3:16, Mark 1:10, Luke 3:22, John 1:32). Immediately afterward, we read that the Spirit led Him into the wilderness to be tempted (Matthew 4:1, Mark 1:12, Luke 4:1). Does this mean that the Holy Spirit entered or moved into Jesus only at His baptism, and then guided Him into the wilderness? Or should the descent of the Spirit be understood differently, since Luke 1:35 indicates that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and therefore already had a unique relationship with Him before baptism?

I've always believed that Jesus was stabbed in his left side. That seems to be the common belief. How is that notion supported? I can't find anything the tells me absolutely in which side he was stabbed, so if there is anyone who says it was the right side, how is that supported?

> 11“I, only I, am the LORD, And there is no savior besides Me. The OT especially has a strong emphasis on there being only one God, Yahweh, and there are only a few scattered and cryptic references to God even having a Son. Trinitarian doctrine tries to solve this problem at least by stating that God is one Being, but represented by three Persons. Non-trinitarians challenge this saying that God and the Son are distinct beings. They would say that Jesus is subordinate to the Father and yet this passage seems to be saying that there is no Savior apart from the Father. The Word of God is manifested plainly in the New Testament, where Jesus seems to be distinct from the Father. But what do non-trinitarians do hermeneutically with passages in the OT like this one that seem to deny the separate existence of the Word? Why would Yahweh say there is no other Savior, whether person or being, knowing that he would be sending his Son to be the Savior of the world? Anyone should feel free to answer the question regardless of their beliefs about the trinity. Here is the verse in its immediate context. > 10“You are My witnesses,” declares the LORD, “And My servant whom I > have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I > am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after > Me. 11“I, even I, am the LORD, And there is no savior besides Me. > 12“It is I who have declared and saved and proclaimed, And there was > no strange god among you; So you are My witnesses,” declares the LORD, > “And I am God. 13“Even from eternity I am He, And there is none who > can deliver out of My hand; I act and who can reverse it?”