Previous Comments

In a comment made by one of my readers, he pointed out that I made a mistake when I compared universal unitarianism and biblical unitarianism. I meant to use the word universal unitarianism in my post. I apologize for this confusion and will try to edit my previous post. They both seem to have a common conception of who God really is… That He doesn’t exist as three persons of the Trinity, but rather in a one God and from what I’ve researched (just briefly, mind you), they have a related background in Arianism (not associated with the Nazi political system). For a starting point, visit wikipedia on Unitarianism and Arianism. As for “Paul referenced the Sacrifice of Jesus as being a complete sacrifice because he was both Man and God”, I was referencing Hebrews (which many scholars attribute to Paul, although some attribute it to other writers of the Bible, or some unknown preacher). I was actually reading this Scripture, which hangs on my wall as a reminder that God in the form of Jesu, stepped down from eternity to experience what I’m going through, so he could feel the full effects of sin and therefore be trusted by me with the work that was set before Him because of the fall. In Hebrews 2:17-18 it states “For this reason, he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.” The reasoning behind why I used this argument is simply this; why would a mere man, exalted though he may be, be able to emphathize with those of us who are being tempted today? He can’t, because he’s not God! I also used this verse because it references the fact that Jesus “had to be made like his brothers in every way”. If something has “to be made[…]” than it must have existed in some form before it had to conformed to something else. I use the word “it” in this manner to demonstrate and communicate an idea. Unfortunately, modern English does not have many choices for gender nuetral personal pronouns. Basically, we only have “she”, “he”, “it”, “they” and variations of these forms. We used to have more but various invasions in the mother country (England), rejection of certain forms of English by kings and rulers in favor of others, and trade with other nations got rid of the other forms and thus created even more ambiguity in the English language. I, by no means, meant any disrespect!

Gods Peace be with you!