The following has been quoted from a Biblical Unitarian Source >Contrary to the assumption that Christ must be God for redemption to be accomplished, we find, upon a closer scrutiny, that the opposite must be the case—that unless he was a man, Jesus could not have redeemed mankind. God’s “infinite” (we prefer a less mathematical and more biblical term like “immortal”) nature actually precluded Him from being our redeemer, because God cannot die. He therefore sent a man equipped for the task, one who could die for our sins and then be raised from the dead to vanquish death forever. This is the clear testimony of Scripture. >Romans 5:15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one MAN [Adam], how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one MAN, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! >If it were a major tenet of Christianity that redemption had to be accomplished by God Himself, then this section of Romans would have been the perfect place to say it. But just when Scripture could settle the argument once and for all, it says that redemption had to be accomplished by a man. The theological imaginings of “learned men” that only God could redeem mankind are rendered null and void by the clear voice of God Himself speaking through Scripture: a man had to do the job. Not just any man, but a sinless man, a man born of a virgin—THE MAN, Jesus, now The Man exalted to the position of “Lord” at God’s right hand. How would Trinitarians counter this argument ? ------------------------------------------------------------ >πολλω μαλλον η χαρις του θεου και η δωρεα εν χαριτι τη του ενος ανθρωπου ιησου χριστου εις τους πολλους επερισσευσεν [Romans 5:15 TR Stephanus, Beza, Elzevir and Scrivener all identical] ------------------------------

What are the main differences between the two? I know that both reject the trinity and the divinity of Jesus, but that's about it. I'm particularly interested in knowing their doctrinal differences (if any) with regards to the following points: - Christology, - Pneumatology, - The nature of God, - Soteriology, - The nature of humans (what happens to us when we die), and any other important doctrinal aspects in which they part ways.

There is a related question here: hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/56196/… We are told in various imagery that Messiah would come in the line of David and be a branch or rod that sprouts from Jesse's roots: > And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord; - Isaiah 11:1-2 > Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the Branch. - Zechariah 3:8 > And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The Branch; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord: - Zechariah 6:12 Later, in Revelation, we are told that Jesus is the root of David: > And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. - Revelation 5:5 And then Jesus himself claims to be both the root and the offspring of David: > I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. - Revelation 22:16 This is much like when Jesus asked about whose son the Christ is "“How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet”’? If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?” (Matthew 22:43-45). For those who believe Jesus did not pre-exist his incarnation, How can Jesus be the root of David if he is David's offspring?

> Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: **Who**, being in the form of God, **thought** it not robbery to be equal with God: - Philippians 2:5-6 Various translations render "*hegeomai*" as thought, consider, regard, count, esteem, deem, reckon, and even a strange "take advantage" (which I think is outside the box). All of these rightly represent a function of mind, as the object in question (equality with God) is perceived and rationally, accurately considered. For comparison, the exact same word in the exact same form appears in 1 Timothy 1:12 (he counted) and Hebrews 11:11 (she judged). Indeed, we are exhorted to have the same mind in us as was in Christ Jesus when He, Christ Jesus, thought (*hegeomai*) it not robbery to be equal with God **when** He was in the form of God. Following that consideration he "took upon him the form of a servant". The condescension follows after and flows from the consideration in the text of v. 6-8 just as the exaltation of v. 9 follows after and flows from the condescension. There are those who declare that, prior to his birth, Jesus did not exist with person-hood and that, if he existed in some form, he existed as "an idea in the mind of God". Biblical Unitarians are one such group. However this verse declares that, prior to his birth in Nazareth, Christ Jesus displayed function of mind. He considered, thought, reckoned, esteemed, or counted. Additionally, having considered he then acted by "making himself of no reputation" and "took the form of a servant" in accordance with his reckoning. It is crystal clear from the verse in question that it is the "who" which "thought" and equally clear that the "who" is Christ Jesus prior to his birth in Nazareth. The who, "being in the form of God", is prior to "in the form of a servant" and "made in the likeness of men" as evidenced by the conjunctive "but" separating the *hegeomai* of equality with God, which took place when in the form of God, and the actions of making himself of no reputation, etc. which result from the *hegeomai*. If the latter activity can be understood as Jesus' birth in Nazareth (and indeed it must if he did not pre-exist his birth), then it is prior to his birth in Nazareth when he considered. From those who deny a pre-incarnate "person" of Christ; Who or what performed "*hegeomai*", that function of personal, rational mind?

Genesis 2:24 says, > Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. This makes sense in Trinitarian theology since we are made in God’s image as Genesis 1:27 says. > So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. I understand Genesis 2:24 to be a reflection of the Trinity since a man and a woman, which are two people, become one flesh in the bond of marriage. This is similar to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being three persons in one essence. How do Unitarians explain being created in God’s image while also holding to this unification within marriage? P.S. I am not putting forward some twisted idea that the Trinity is a marriage.

If a Christian "converts" to Judaism or Islam (or any of the Abrahamic religions), is he still considered saved as a Christian? What if he/she converted from Trinitarian to Unitarian? This is a general Christian question, so I am requesting an overview of Christian positions on such conversions.

The verb ζῳοποιέω , *zōopoieō* is only used in John's Gospel and only by Jesus: >For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. (John 5:21) >It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. (John 6:63) There are two meanings BDAG provides for *zōopoieō*: ❶ **to cause to live, *make alive, give life to*** and ❷ **to keep alive, *sustain life*** 1 Outside John's Gospel it used by Paul (7x ) and Peter (1x ). The three uses by Jesus describe *zōopoieō* by a different means. 1. The Father raises the dead and ζῳοποιέω 2. The Son ζῳοποιέω to whom He will 3. It is the Spirit who ζῳοποιέω The use seems straightforward. The Father raises the dead and *gives life*, but it is the Son who *gives life* to whom He will, and the means by which the Son and Father *give life* is the Spirit. When the two statements by Jesus are considered together it is hard for me to see how this can not be seen as an explicit definition of the Trinity. How do Biblical Unitarians understand the Gospel's use of ζῳοποιέω, "to give life?" ----- 1. Frederick William Danker, *A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition*, The University Chicago Press, 2000, pp. 431-432.

There are many denominations out there who claim to be unitarian, do any of them accept all or some of the ecumenical councils? If so which councils do they accept and on what basis? If they accept one not on this list feel free to mention it and explain why. 1. First Ecumenical Council (Nicea, 325 A.D.) 2. Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople, 381 A.D.) 3. Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus, 431 A.D.) 4. Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon, 451 A.D.) 5. Fifth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople, 553 A.D.) 6. Sixth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople, 680 A.D.) - The Quinisext Synod (691 A.D.) 7. Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicea, 787 A.D.)

In the Old Testament, God is identified by many things. Among these are His name, His unique attributes and characteristics, his role or office relative to His creation, and His unique abilities and actions. Sometimes these are combined in scripture when referring to God. One such combination is God's totally unique abilities and actions and His role as the judge of men's hearts and His authority to reward them according to His own findings. This identifies God as omniscient (an attribute unique to God) and as the judge of their hearts (a role or authority unique to God alone). Jeremiah 17:10 says: > "I, the LORD, **search the heart, I test the mind**, even > to give each man according to his ways, **According to the results of > his deeds.**" Please answer this simple question: who is it that Jeremiah addresses as the one that sees the hearts of men and Himself tests the mind? Who does the Old Testament repeatedly identify as this One who is so omniscient as to judge the hearts of men? (See 1 Samuel 16:7, 1 Chronicles 28:9, 29:17, 2 Chronicles 6:30, Psalm 7:9, 139:1, and others.) I ask this question because this is what Jesus Christ stated in Revelation 2:23: > "And I will kill her children with pestilence; and all the churches > will know that I am He who searches **the minds and hearts**; and I > will give to each one of you **according to your deeds.**" So you suppose that in writing this passage where Jesus identifies Himself as the one who searches the hearts of men and rewards them according to His judgment that John might have had reason to think that Jesus is the *same one* as the one who so identifies Himself throughout the Old Testament?

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 article below appears on 'Historica Fandom' and I am seeking to substantiate what it says. My question is not about issues arising from the content of the article as such. I am only seeking to substantiate it as being factual. Is this an accurate resume of the current status of the Unification Sanctuary Church ? >The World Peace and Unification Sanctuary Church is a far-right new religious movement in the United States which was founded in 2013 by Hyung Jin Moon and his wife Yeon Ah Lee Moon as a schismatic splinter from the Unification Church. The church officially commenced in Newfoundland, Pennsylvania in January 2015, and it became infamous for its fetishization of firearms as their interpretation of the "rod of iron" mentioned in the Bible. In early 2018, not long after a deadly school shooting in Parkland, Florida, the church gained notoriety for holding a marriage vows renewal ceremony that asked participants to bring their AR-15 rifles. Moon and other members of the church participated in the 2021 United States coup d'etat attempt in Washington DC, and, that same year, the church relocated to a compound near Waco, Texas, the site of the Branch Davidians' former compound. Historica Fandom

> Another attempt to restore the original sinless world was the coming of Jesus Christ when God sent the Messiah to establish the perfect family and thus create the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. **Jesus did not fulfill this mission** because he was crucified. Wikipedia - Unification Church >Christ will be successful at His Second Coming – God will send the 'True Parents of humanity' and through them fulfill the purpose of creation. During the previous two thousand years, God has prepared, according to the principle of restoration, a suitable democratic, social, and legal environment that will protect Christ at the Second Coming. Wikipedia - Unification Church It would seem that the Unification Church does not see the sufferings, death, bloodshed, resurrection, ascension and enthronement of Jesus Christ as a 'triumph' - >And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, **triumphing** over them [Colossians 2:15 KJV] What scriptures does the Unification Church use to support their view of the sufferings and death of Christ as being 'unsuccessful' ?

> John 1:1-3: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. > > Colossians 1:16: For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. > > Hebrews 1:8, 10: But about the Son he says, ... He also says, > “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. Revelation 3:14, "The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God." These verses all say that it was Jesus or God the Son who created the universe. Isaiah 44:24 says: > 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. According to [Unitarian theology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism#Christology) Jesus Christ is a created being and He never preexisted His incarnation as a man. So explain how or why Jesus is identified as the Agent of creation according to the verses quoted?

Many Christians believe that Jesus is God (it's just a matter of realizing how widespread trinitarianism is, for example). However, there are Christians that go one step further and act on this belief, treating Jesus for all practical purposes as God almighty. They pray to Jesus, they talk about Jesus all the time, and they even worship Him as God (for some good illustrative examples, please see [this](https://youtu.be/Z5a-hW9AJQI?t=159) and [this](https://youtu.be/QsYyuK1w3q0)) . Likewise, there are Christians who do pretty much the same with the Holy Spirit. A very good example is Benny Hinn's best-selling book [Good Morning, Holy Spirit](https://www.amazon.com/Good-Morning-Holy-Spirit-Benny/dp/0785261265) , which has been read and cherished by thousands, if not millions of Christians around the world. In this [video clip](https://youtu.be/wJ-urZd2x2k) you can see Benny Hinn leading a whole stadium to worship the Holy Spirit. **Question**: According to Biblical Unitarians: Does worshiping either Jesus or the Holy Spirit as God entail committing the sin of idolatry? When Christians worship Jesus or the Holy Spirit as God, are they sinning? If the answer is yes, then what happens to those Christians who have systematically committed this sin throughout their lives and die never repenting? Will they go to Hell as unrepentant idolaters, or does the answer depend on other conditions? _____________________ Answering to the comments: why would idolaters go to Hell? 1 Cor 6:9: *Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral **nor idolaters** nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men*

Matthew 18:20, "For where two or three are gathered together in My name, there I am in their midst." The same idea is also expressed at John 14:23, "Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and WE will come to him, and make Our "abode" with him." That Jesus is present wherever people are gathered in His name speaks of His deity. So, how can this be in view of the fact that only God is omnipresent?

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 answer is found at Zechariah 12:10 where the Lord Himself is speaking. "And I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look upon Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him, like the bitter weeping over a first-born." The Lord in this verse identifies Himself as the one being pierced and slain. This has caused MUCH debate among Jewish scholars over the centuries even to the point of some changing the modern translations of the scriptures to obscure this fact. But that the issue itself was debated so long ago siting this scripture as written above is evidence that the scriptures as we have them are correct and there is valid reason to infer that YHWH himself is the one to be pierced. Now, my question is for Biblical Unitarians who deny the deity of Jesus Christ. What reason or reasons can you offer that dispute the plain meaning of Zechariah 12:10?

Reading chats and posts and such here with our BU friends I've noticed a thread that seems similar to the way Catholics view The Blessed Virgin Mary and Unitarians view Jesus. It seems like in both theologies they're asymptotically approaching God/Divinity. Could someone help me compare and contrast the relations between the two? Basically, what is the difference between Unitarian Christology and Catholic Mariology?

John 1:1 says: >"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." -KJV The Greek says: >Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος How do Unitarians (those that deny a preexisting Messiah) interpret this verse? If there is more than one, please provide an overview of the various interpretations.

> 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?