r/BiblicalUnitarian

r/BiblicalUnitarianJoin
A subreddit for the encouragement and discussion of the Biblical Unitarian position which holds
that the Heavenly Father alone is God, that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God and the
Messiah prophesied about in the Scriptures, and that the holy spirit is the spirit of God.

845Members6Online
•
John 1:30 & Matthew 11:11
ArchaicChaos commented 1 day ago
You seem like a nice dude, but your posts always baffle me at how you take statements that are
not very complex in the Bible, twist them into something totally in left field, and then pretend
that we Unitarians have the burden of proof to disprove your theory that you haven't argued for.
Quite frankly, I really feel like some classes on Hermeneutics or a book on it might do you some
good. Perhaps also taking a class on epistemology or getting a textbook.

John 1:30: This is He concerning whom I said, 'After me comes a man who has precedence over
me, because He was before me.'

It is understandable why you'd think this is about preexistence given the way most translations
translate the last clause: "he was before me." "Before" is not a good translation. The Greek word
πρῶτος (prótos) quite literally means "principle" or "the first of me" in this context. It is the same
word as is in Colossians 1:15, "the firstborn of all creation." We know how you
Trinitarians/Binitarians interpret that. The head of creation in priority and principle, not the first
one born in time. Use the same argument here. Jesus was of greater priority than John because he
was John's head. He is the one who John is preparing the way for. You can see my article on this
verse in this subreddit if you want to discuss that more.

Matthew 11:11: Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater
than John the Baptist. Yet the least in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he!

This is just a hyperbole. If John is Elijah, and Elijah was born of women, then John is the same
as Elijah, not greater. Jesus calls himself "greater than Solomon" but he says "John is Elijah."
Clearly he doesn't mean every single person ever born is literally not as good as John. This
would include himself, he was born of a woman. Galatians 4:4. Jesus, born of a woman.

her role was that of a surrogate and that he therefore would not be classified as one born of a
woman,

The Bible never says anything about her being a surrogate. It says the Spirit overshadowed her
and caused her to conceive. No, it doesn't say it put something in her from outside of her. It
doesn't say someone was beamed into her womb. The verb tenses don't even say this has
happened yet. The parallel that's being made to Genesis 1:2 ff even more clarifies that. Also...
yes. Galatians 4:4, Jesus was born of a woman, again.

which would explain how the statements in both those verses are true.

It wouldn't, actually. It could be a possibility if the context of John 1:30 had anything to do with
preexistence, which is doesn't, so we wouldn't assume the standard reading unless we want to
make a theologically circular case.

from a Unitarian position that does not believe in the preexistence of Christ, how can John 1:30
and Matthew 11:11 both be telling the truth?

Jesus is higher than John and Jesus is using a hyperbolic statement in regards to John.

This isn't any sort of a stretch because we know how much the crowds liked John the Baptist.
Not only does even Josephus talk about John's followers, not only are they mentioned in Acts,
but even when Jesus asks "was John's baptism from heaven or men," the Pharisees were afraid to
discredit John because they feared the crowds. Why did they fear the crowds? They loved John
and regarded his as a prophet to high esteem. They asked if he was the Messiah. So when Jesus
claims that John is great, he's appealing to the crowds. Try reading Matthew 11:10, just before
the verse you quoted, and you'll see it makes a perfect bridge between these two passages you're
bringing up and my explanation here. There's no confusion or contradiction. There's not a word
about preexistence here.
Upvote2DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

r/BiblicalUnitarian•
John 1:30 & Matthew 11:11
ArchaicChaos commented 1 day ago
You seem like a nice dude, but your posts always baffle me at how you take statements that are
not very complex in the Bible, twist them into something totally in left field, and then pretend
that we Unitarians have the burden of proof to disprove your theory that you haven't argued for.

Quite frankly, I really feel like some classes on Hermeneutics or a book on it might do you some
good. Perhaps also taking a class on epistemology or getting a textbook.

John 1:30: This is He concerning whom I said, 'After me comes a man who has precedence over
me, because He was before me.'

It is understandable why you'd think this is about preexistence given the way most translations
translate the last clause: "he was before me." "Before" is not a good translation. The Greek word
πρῶτος (prótos) quite literally means "principle" or "the first of me" in this context. It is the same
word as is in Colossians 1:15, "the firstborn of all creation." We know how you
Trinitarians/Binitarians interpret that. The head of creation in priority and principle, not the first
one born in time. Use the same argument here. Jesus was of greater priority than John because he
was John's head. He is the one who John is preparing the way for. You can see my article on this
verse in this subreddit if you want to discuss that more.
Matthew 11:11: Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater
than John the Baptist. Yet the least in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he!

This is just a hyperbole. If John is Elijah, and Elijah was born of women, then John is the same
as Elijah, not greater. Jesus calls himself "greater than Solomon" but he says "John is Elijah."
Clearly he doesn't mean every single person ever born is literally not as good as John. This
would include himself, he was born of a woman. Galatians 4:4. Jesus, born of a woman.

her role was that of a surrogate and that he therefore would not be classified as one born of a
woman,

The Bible never says anything about her being a surrogate. It says the Spirit overshadowed her
and caused her to conceive. No, it doesn't say it put something in her from outside of her. It
doesn't say someone was beamed into her womb. The verb tenses don't even say this has
happened yet. The parallel that's being made to Genesis 1:2 ff even more clarifies that. Also...
yes. Galatians 4:4, Jesus was born of a woman, again.

which would explain how the statements in both those verses are true.

It wouldn't, actually. It could be a possibility if the context of John 1:30 had anything to do with
preexistence, which is doesn't, so we wouldn't assume the standard reading unless we want to
make a theologically circular case.

from a Unitarian position that does not believe in the preexistence of Christ, how can John 1:30
and Matthew 11:11 both be telling the truth?

Jesus is higher than John and Jesus is using a hyperbolic statement in regards to John.

This isn't any sort of a stretch because we know how much the crowds liked John the Baptist.
Not only does even Josephus talk about John's followers, not only are they mentioned in Acts,
but even when Jesus asks "was John's baptism from heaven or men," the Pharisees were afraid to
discredit John because they feared the crowds. Why did they fear the crowds? They loved John
and regarded his as a prophet to high esteem. They asked if he was the Messiah. So when Jesus
claims that John is great, he's appealing to the crowds. Try reading Matthew 11:10, just before
the verse you quoted, and you'll see it makes a perfect bridge between these two passages you're
bringing up and my explanation here. There's no confusion or contradiction. There's not a word
about preexistence here.
Upvote2DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare
r/fightporn•
He waited patiently to release the perfect shot
ArchaicChaos replied to Timely-Surround-2306 1 day ago
When he was against the wall, he was still conscious, not profusely bleeding, or suffering any
damage he couldn't walk off.

When buddy was on the floor knocked out, continuing to hit him like that can result in serious
serious problems for black hoodie. It's not worth killing someone over.

I get your point and all, but there is a difference. For black hoodies protection, pull him off after
the guy hits the ground. Especially when it's being recorded. If that guy took a shot that killed
him, black Hoodie would have wished someone stopped him.
Upvote27DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare
r/BiblicalUnitarian•
What are some verses from the new testament (especially the
gospel of john) that clearly deny trinitarian christianity ?
ArchaicChaos replied to Victorreidd 2 days ago
Because the Trinity has been shaped for 2000 years to fit around all biblical texts.

You're never going to be able to pick any verse in the Bible that flatly contradicts the Trinity. I've
been preaching this for years. This shouldn't be how we argue.

Even if the Trinity were contradicted in the Bible, it doesn't stop their argument from progressive
revelation.
Upvote6DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

r/BiblicalUnitarian•
1 Corinthians 8:6 “by whom are all things”
ArchaicChaos replied to Read_Less_Pray_More 2 days ago
Thank you
Upvote2DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare
r/BiblicalUnitarian•
What are some verses from the new testament (especially the
gospel of john) that clearly deny trinitarian christianity ?
ArchaicChaos commented 2 days ago
None of them. The Trinity can slide around all of these comments if we are honest with
ourselves. Wanna see?
Upvote5DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

r/BiblicalUnitarian•
This subs attitude towards JW’s?
ArchaicChaos replied to Cato_1006 2 days ago
If their organization allowed people to question them, it wouldn't be such a problem. But as my
last post to this sub showed categorically, you're not allowed to be a member and know anything
outside of what they tell you. You're not allowed to listen to any other denominations or points
of view or anything. You can't read or accept religious literature from other people. You can't
question their authority and their headship. The threat of disfellowshipping is also a big issue.

They don't address criticisms to their views and they don't allow their members to even see it.
You're boxed into their theology with threats if you leave or question. The cultism is the main
problem.
Upvote2DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

r/BiblicalUnitarian•
1 Corinthians 8:6 “by whom are all things”
ArchaicChaos replied to Kvest_flower 2 days ago
Philippians 2:9-11 says
Which contradicts
Psalms 148:13: Let them praise the name of YHWH, For His name alone is exalted; His glory is
above earth and heaven.

That's not a contradiction unless you think Jesus is being given the name "Yahweh" at his
exaltation, which he isn't, and that wouldn't make any sense. You can't make someone Yahweh.
Paul tells you what name it is in this passage, "so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow
and every tongue will confess him as Lord." The name Jesus is given at exaltation is Lord. See
Acts 2:36. So no, there is no contradiction and this doesn't show that Paul is anything other than
Unitarian.

That's why Trinitarians use that Paul verse to argue Jesus is YHWH
They use it because they don't understand it. You and them both can read my articles on
Philippians 2.

Paul's words in Col. 1:15-16 parallel Hebrews 1:2:

Not sure if your quotations from Hebrews are because you think Paul wrote Hebrews, but, if you
do, nobody thinks that. It was probably Apollos or Barnabas but it certainly wasn't Paul.

A parallel between these passages, whether you think they're both Paul or not doesn't prove
anything either. Again, you can see my articles on Hebrews 1:2 and my articles on Colossians
1:16. Neither case does Paul say Jesus is God or anything else that contradicts correct theology
or Unitarianism.

in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through
whom also He made the world.

This is a terrible translation. The word isn't "world" it's aionios, or ages. "In these last days God
has spoken to us in a son" contradicts the idea that he thinks Jesus preexistent to speak prior to
these last days, let alone created worlds before these last days. "Ages" is in the plural. What
worlds do you think he's talking about? He's talking about the age that is and the age that is to
come. These last days and the millennial kingdom.

Hebrews 1:6 refers to Jesus as the firstborn in the same Greek of Col. 1:

Several NT authors and speakers refer to Jesus as God's firstborn, prototokos.

And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship
him."

Again, so what? You do realize this verse is about Jesus being taken to heaven right? You
skipped verse 4. Read it in context and see what point the Hebrews writer is making in the
context of angels. And again, read my article on it.

Hebrews 1:8-10
"But about the Son he says: "Your throne, O God, will last forever, a scepter of justice will be
the scepter of your kingdom.

Again, when Jesus ascends to heaven to receive this glorification. Why aren't you connecting this
to Philippians 2:8-9: "death even on a cross, therefore God highly exalted him."

There's also another translation issue here but, I will, again, direct you to my article on this if you
want that discussion. Why we are discussing Hebrews when talking about Paul I do not know.

Verses 8-10 are a quotation of Psalm 102:23-25 in the Septuagint Greek. Hebrew is different,
and has different meaning
"The word 'Lord' is wholly absent from the Hebrew text of Psalm 102:25."
So... your quotation is wrong. Verses 8 and 9 are quotations of Psalm 45:6-7, which is just fine in
the Hebrew and Greek. The differences here come at the end of that chapter and don't affect the
quotation.

Psalm 102 is quoted, not here, but in Hebrews 1:10-12. And it's towards the Father. Not an issue.

Hebrews repeats Paul: Jesus was a begotten Son - before the worlds were made, and then the Son
- distinct from the being who created Jesus - created the heavens and the earth.

Paul never says this.

Husband dies. The bride (the believers) then is free from the law.
if the Law's death was the cause of its own cessation. Why bother with the husband-wife analogy
at all if one is simply affirming the Law is dead?
Who died? Who was the husband, if it was not the Law itself then?

What? No. Paul's point is that a husband and wife are part of a marriage contact, and that
contract is broken at death. "Till death do we part." When someone dies, the contract is broken.
God's covenant with Israel was like a marriage contract. That contract is broken at death. Israel
killed the Messiah, who embodied the law and represented them (which is what Israel asked for
by asking for a human king), and so the contract is broken at death. Because Israel symbolically
died in Christ, the Jews are set free from the law. Just as a woman is freed from her marriage
when the husband dies.

What does this even have to do with anything?

Edit: you can find links to all these articles here

Upvote4DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare
r/BiblicalUnitarian•
1 Corinthians 8:6 “by whom are all things”
ArchaicChaos replied to No_Quit_9604 2 days ago
Thank you
Upvote3DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

r/BiblicalUnitarian•
1 Corinthians 8:6 “by whom are all things”
ArchaicChaos replied to SnoopyCattyCat 2 days ago
Thank you. Context is always king
Upvote2DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare
r/BiblicalUnitarian•
1 Corinthians 8:6 “by whom are all things”
ArchaicChaos replied to Kvest_flower 2 days ago
1. Based on? Paul never calls Jesus God, or a God, or mentions his preexistence. So
where do you get that? Philippians 2:6? Or Titus 2:13 which wasn't even written by
Paul?
2. If it's close to Arianism, which is Unitarian, why do you claim Paul isn't a Unitarian
then?
Upvote6DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

r/BiblicalUnitarian•
1 Corinthians 8:6 “by whom are all things”
ArchaicChaos commented 2 days ago
Paul is identifying the Father as the source of all creation (‘from whom are all things’)

Yes and no. This is a secondary interpretation of the verse. It is implied that God is the source of
all things ever created in this passage and that Jesus is the one for whom he made all things, but
this is a spiritual meaning that underlies his primary meaning.

His primary meaning is "for us." He isn't talking about Genesis creation. He is talking about
something for "us." Do we take "us" to mean all human beings? No. So why are we taking "all
things" to mean "all things ever created?" It's an inconsistent argument. We know that "us" refers
to Christians in Paul's context. This is a juxtaposition to that which Paul just stated. For those
outside of Christianity, they have many gods and many lords. But for us, Christians, there is one
God and one Lord. If his meaning were primarily "all creation" that was ever created, then this
wouldn't be a statement exclusive to Christians, would it? It would be addressing all people and
all religions. For us, Christians, our one God is the cause of all things. For us. This is a new
creation statement and its about the things that have been made ours in Christ.

1Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that “all of us possess knowledge.” This
“knowledge” puffs up, but love builds up. 2If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does
not yet know as he ought to know. 3But if anyone loves God, he is known by God. 4Therefore,
as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that
“there is no God but one.” 5For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as
indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— 6yet for us there is one God, the Father, from
whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all
things and through whom we exist.

What's Paul's topic? "Concerning food sacrificed to idols." After speaking on this, he says
"therefore," linking his argument. "Yet for us... all things."

His point is that just because people have offered meat to idols and sacrificed it to their gods
doesn't mean anything. By God through Christ, all things have been made ours. He's saying that
it's not wrong to eat meat sacrificed to idols unless you presuppose that these gods actually exist,
but as Christians, we know better. They think they are sacrificing these things to a god, but they
are only imagining it. Therefore, all things are lawful to eat. Do you see the point he's making in
context? Nothing to do with Genesis creation. The rest of the chapter reaffirms this.

It is true that God created all things in Genesis. But that's not what Paul is talking about here. It
is true that all things were made through Christ in the sense that what was foreshadowed was to
be in Christ (the reconciliation), and it is true that through Christ we exist, because we are born
again of the Spirit that Jesus himself pours out from the Father. "It is no longer I who live but
Christ who lives in me." These are Paul's own words.

For more information on some issues with this, see the section in my article on the shema here
Upvote8DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare
r/BiblicalUnitarian•
1 Corinthians 8:6 “by whom are all things”
ArchaicChaos replied to Kvest_flower 2 days ago
It's a pretty baseless interpretation, and every time you're called out on it, you never give a good
response, if any response at all.

What Christology (you actually mean theology) do you think Paul had?
Upvote5DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

r/BiblicalUnitarian•
This subs attitude towards JW’s?
ArchaicChaos replied to ArchaicChaos 2 days ago
Upvote1DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

r/BiblicalUnitarian•
This subs attitude towards JW’s?
ArchaicChaos commented 2 days ago
this is not correct...

Yes it is.

https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament/

The MSS is of the LXX OT of Exodus and they use it as a cover page for "the divine name in
the New Testament."

the oldest LXX has the divine name in Greek characters as IAO and later ones have it as hebrew
characters Yod Heh Waw Heh...

What does this have to do with anything I said? Especially what you quoted? Nobody is debating
whether we have LXX MSS with the divine name in them. That's not the point. I emphatically
stated its about the NT that's the concern. Unless this is just another deflection.

as to the NT not having the name... to me it just proves that the NT is a fraud. you do not go from
a god who is so hell bent on having his name proclaimed to every nation on earth, murdering
people to do it, to a god who does not care at all... from having his name more times than any
other name or title combined to ZERO, it just would not happen...

That's a terrible reason to conclude the NT is fraudulent. If it just "wouldn't happen" because
you feel like it wouldn't happen, then neither would the original pronunciation have been lost. Or
would the Jews have stopped using the name altogether. Or the OT manuscripts would have
started striking out the name. If this is your epistemic metric of authenticity, then you'd have to
reject the OT MSS and the late Jews by the same metric.

As for having his name proclaimed, again, it's not about a proper name. It's about his glory. If
God just wanted people to know his personal name, he'd tell them.

its like finding a dollar bill without the red white and blue silk threads, you know its a fake.

No, it's not.

the further fact that Jesus makes several false prophecies and quotes the false prophet Daniel's
failed prophecies only makes this more clear.

Like?

but Jesus told you who he really was rev 22:16 he is the bright morning star which refers to only
one bible reference Isa 14:12 which it is translated as Lucifer.

And? You think "lucifer" is Satan? And did Jesus tell you who he is in Revelation if the NT is
fraudulent? That doesn't make sense.
Upvote2DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

r/BiblicalUnitarian•
This subs attitude towards JW’s?
ArchaicChaos replied to jiohdi1960 2 days ago
That's a deflection.
If they decided to restore the name in the OT, that's fine. Other translations like the REV,
Companion bible, and YLT do so, too. They should have user "Yahweh" rather than "Jehovah," a
very strange translation of the 4 Hebrew consonants as well as the vowels being different from
the pointings of the Masoretic text, and these being substituted in from "Adonai." In other words,
they want to remove "Lord" from the OT and put in the original name, but aren't using the
original name and still using the vowels from "Lord" to get this name "Jehovah."

The difference between the old and new testaments is that the name did appear in the original
manuscripts of the OT and was redacted and editorialized out. This never happened with the NT.
So, to add it basically and crudely means that you think the NT authors made a mistake, and you
take it upon yourself to add it in self-righteousness.

Nobody in the NT used the OT name of God. We wouldn't expect them to. God isn't just a
personal name to us anymore. Further, Yahweh is a covenantal name given to Israel by God. He
told Moses that his forefathers did not know him by this name. Why? God has become a father to
us in a personal sense in a way that supercedes that of the OT covenant with Israel. While a few
OT passages call God a father, it is not a common title or way in which they referred to him.
Israel was not born again of God, but we are. Your dad has a name. Do you use it? Or do you
call him your "Father?" How would you feel if you wrote a card to your dad and someone at the
post office took it, scribbled out every instance of "dad, father, parent" and replaced it with your
dad's personal name before sending it?

If you desire to call what you've written a translation (as the "New World Translation" does),
then you should translate what is there, not add in. Ironically, precisely what the JWs
hypocritically criticize others of doing in the OT (changing the original designation of God to
another designation), is precisely what they do in the NT. Another issue I have is the dishonest
methods in which they attempt to employ in their appendix of the bible on why they do so. Never
has a single manuscript of the NT ever shown that the name Yahweh was in the manuscripts (the
only exception being the strange and controversial Shem Tov manuscript which is very late and
probably does not reflect anything older than itself). They will argue that the Lord's prayer
mentions "hallowed be thy name" and they argue that this name must be "Jehovah." Yet, they
deny that "the name of the Father, son, and spirit" in Matthew 28:19, the same book, is referring
to a personal name. This is inconsistent exegesis for the sake of theologically motivated
justification which is intellectually dishonest. Or the fact that they use a Greek LXX OT
fragment as their cover picture for the section, which looks as if there's some Greek NT MS that
show the name YHWH in it, when there's not a single one.

They are not "restoring," they are adding to the NT. Not for the sake of clarity, but to push their
theological fixation on this name in an effort to isolate themselves from other Christians and use
it as a shibboleth. We can keep going, but it should be clear that this is not only a problem, but
also an invalid comparison to say what has been done to the OT is some justification for their
inclusions in the NT, especially without a response for why they create theological difficulties
that were not in the text originally by doing so (my statement regarding Romans 10).
Upvote7DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare
r/BiblicalUnitarian•
This subs attitude towards JW’s?
ArchaicChaos commented 3 days ago
There are a fair amount of JWs here. Whether they are open about it, lurk only, or are JWs and
deny it. I did a poll here to see and they declined to participate for some reason.

It's hard to include JWs under the Unitarian umbrella because they are so incredibly different. As
people, they are just people. As their authority goes, there are a lot of problems. You want to
know what our opinions are about their teaching but not their authority tho. That seems kind of
impossible considering their authority gives them their teachings

JWs theology grew out of branches of the Unitarian reformation. So their core is correct because
they broke off and took our teachings, such as Jesus being a man, God being one, soul sleep, etc.
But all theology that's exclusive to the JWs is incredibly strange, such as Michael the archangel
being Jesus or the 144,000 or the failed predictions of the second advent.

The NWT is an incredibly unremarkable translation. Most of their exclusive translations are
pretty incorrect. I've given them credit on John 10:33 in my article, but I've also written
criticizing their translation of places like John 1:1c and John 8:58 or John 14-16. Adding in the
name "Jehovah" to the NT really bothers me and shows an incredible amount of ignorance and
unparalleled liberty with the text. And they get it wrong in places like Romans 10 and it becomes
a theological issue.

The problem with JWs is their authority and how they disseminate their theology. I wrote a post
a few weeks ago here calling out some issues and it became wildly polarized. I had people DM
saying they appreciated it and people DM me saying I was an apostate or trying to convert me to
be a JW.
Upvote6DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare
r/BiblicalUnitarian•
No, Mark didn't portray Jesus as God
ArchaicChaos commented 3 days ago
Agency can be a possible interpretation. I've been crucified by Unitarians for saying we can't use
this as a cop out. What I mean is, if this is only asserted because it is elsewhere by others and we
wish to avoid the conclusion that Jesus is God, this seems very much like the same ad hoc
responses we are tired of hearing from Trinitarians. I think everyone universally agrees that
agency is used in scripture at times. I think everyone also agrees that we could possibly say that.
But without a mechanism for it, it becomes just as plausible as any other interpretation. This is
why in my own articles on these passages I don't rely on that interpretation. Agency/shaliah can
be used to substantiate an already hermeneutically plausible case. But it shouldn't take first
priority without a reason for why that is the case.

Yes, the Messiah comes with the name of God in him. The apostles of Jesus (remembering that
"apostle" in Hebrew is shaliah, which means agency) say things like "it is not I who lives but
Christ in me." But do we ever see them being called Christ? Jesus? No we don't. We run the risk
of a special pleading fallacy when we only apply this to Jesus and not anyone else in the NT.

Trinitarians accept agency in other places. They need a reason as to why they have to accept it in
passages like these. It's not enough to show that it did exist in other Jewish literature. Especially
Metatron, because he is flatly called God and many Jewish traditions believed he was a second
God of some sort. Another Yahweh (see McClellan's book). Just throwing this out there.
Upvote3DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare
r/BiblicalUnitarian•
The "church fathers" who lived in the first 200 years of
Christianity
ArchaicChaos replied to BlueGTA_1 4 days ago
Thank you
Upvote3DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

r/BiblicalUnitarian•
The "church fathers" who lived in the first 200 years of
Christianity
ArchaicChaos commented 4 days ago
When we look at the writings attributed to these people, it is clear that they did indeed believe in
the Trinity or something similar.

No it's not. Make a list of all the early church leaders you can find names to in the first two
centuries and you'll find none of them believe in the Trinity or anything like the Trinity until the
last 50 years of that 200 year period.

When you get these flash card apologetics from people who want to show "look, Irenaeus called
Jesus "God" read his entire document and get a critical commentary on it. You'll find that maybe
he did call Jesus God, but did he mean it the way trinitarian meant it? No. When you look at
critical notes you'll find that there are textual variants. Clement of Rome doesn't believe in a
Trinity and he's the earliest church father we have on record outside of the canonical texts. Our
earliest documents like the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, also do not teach the Trinity.
People have hinted that some other writers in the 2nd century have called Jesus God in some
sense, like in Ignatius of Antioch or the Epistle of Barnabas, or Clement of Alexandria. But all of
these have issues. Ignatius' writings are some of the worst attested documents we have. We can't
be sure what he said. There are 3 different versions of his writings and scholars are torn between
two. Both containing some forgeries, we don't know to what extent. The Epistle of Barnabas'
statement is controversial and has been argued by some (Thomas Gaston iirc) to have been
possessionist christology, not trinitarian high Christology. Clement of Alexandria openly claimed
that gnosis was the method of salvation. He was a gnostic. And this is evident if you really read
his writings. Justin Martyr calls Jesus a second God. Never mentions the Holy Spirit as a third
either. But even if he did, this isn't the Trinity, it's polytheism. Athenagoras is the earliest church
father who mentions the Trinity, and assuming he's the first documented source of the Trinity we
have, his view isn't widespread or mainstream. Theophilus of Antioch mentions a different
Trinity than Athenagoras, "God, his word and his wisdom." Notice who "God" is in this
formulation. Not the Trinity, but the Father, with his word and wisdom (not his Spirit). By the
end of the 2nd century, you still have people like Theodotus of Byzantium and Artemis who
were Unitarians. Moving into the 3rd century you had the Bishop of Antioch, Paul of Samosata,
a full blown Unitarian as well.

Whenever someone argues that a church father is Trinitarian, don't accept their statements of
"Jesus is God" as proof of the Trinity. Plenty of Unitarians call Jesus "God" in some sense. That's
not the Trinity. At best, it's the deity of Christ. At worst, it's a high Socinian or Arian Unitarian
christology. Do some homework on these sources. There's a quote by Polycarp floating around
the internet that says he calls Jesus God. There's not a manuscript in existence that shows that he
says that. Really look. Don't take peoples word for it.

Below I will link my debate on Unitarianism in the early church posted to a debate reddit and
you can see what you make of the argument. And you can see a comment I left to a user on this
subreddit that explores these early church issues where he debated these issues from very
incredulous sources. The Trinity was developing sometime in the 2nd century and doesn't appear
to become mainstream until sometime in the 3rd century. Still debated in the 4th century, and not
predominately until 380 thanks to political pressure. Don't let revisionist history fool you.

Debate link,
beginning of comment thread on early church father quotations

bonus that I forgot I posted responding to an apologetic website that I copy and pasted or
something.
Upvote10DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

r/BiblicalUnitarian•
Alpha and Omega, First and Last (Revelation 1:8, 17-18, 21:6,
22:13)
ArchaicChaos OP replied to No_Reply3901 5 days ago
Thank you. I appreciate it.
Upvote2DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare
r/BiblicalUnitarian•
Infinite Interpretations
ArchaicChaos replied to JonnyOneTooth 5 days ago
Why are conflicting interpretations important to you?
Upvote1DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

r/BiblicalUnitarian•
Infinite Interpretations
ArchaicChaos replied to JonnyOneTooth 5 days ago
I can't keep repeating myself on the same point.
Upvote1DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare
r/BiblicalUnitarian•
Infinite Interpretations
ArchaicChaos replied to JonnyOneTooth 5 days ago
A written law is anything written in ink or stone that you deem to be your moral law.

Christians don't have one.

Upvote2DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

r/amIuglyBrutallyHonest•
Felt pretty and I need a reality check
ArchaicChaos replied to DivineAgony666 5 days ago
Have you ever heard the expression "lipstick on a pig?"
Upvote19DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

r/amIuglyBrutallyHonest•
Felt pretty and I need a reality check
ArchaicChaos commented 5 days ago
Sir, you need to chill. You're placing your entire identity into trying to be a woman and "look
pretty and feel pretty" and are very much failing. Your post history is a tragedy. Changing your
outward appearance will never fix the inner emotional and psychological demons you're fighting.
But if you insist, spend less time on hormones, playing with make up and dresses, and more time
in the gym.
Upvote20DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

r/BiblicalUnitarian•
Infinite Interpretations
ArchaicChaos replied to JonnyOneTooth 5 days ago
It's because you're assuming interpretation of a written law = truth and that's not the truth of a
Christian who does not walk according to the letter of any written law.

Interpretation, like I said already, is going to change depending on any number of factors. That's
just the nature of written works.
Upvote2DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

r/ActualPublicFreakouts•
Groper gets Maced
ArchaicChaos replied to Hopeful_Bad_5876 5 days ago
Haha. Yeah, I know that's true, but murder is one of those things that she would at least be held
for.
Upvote-2DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

r/Wellthatsucks•
Paint store guy didn't close the can properly...
ArchaicChaos commented 6 days ago
What? Do you think OP opened the can of paint before putting it in their new car? If he didn't
open it, and it just left the paint store 10 minutes ago.... who do you think did it?
Upvote4DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

r/fightporn•
Bus driver fights passenger for spitting
6 days ago
[removed]
Upvote1DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

r/ActualPublicFreakouts•
Groper gets Maced
ArchaicChaos replied to realparkingbrake 6 days ago
killing someone over being groped could have put her in prison

"Could have?" In what world would it not land her in prison?

Upvote-1DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare
r/ActualPublicFreakouts•
Altercation with Suspect on Wheels
ArchaicChaos replied to Limeclimber 6 days ago
Unplugging his battery will
Upvote21DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

r/BiblicalUnitarian•
Infinite Interpretations
ArchaicChaos replied to JonnyOneTooth 6 days ago
Read 2 Corinthians 3.
Upvote2DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

r/BiblicalUnitarian•
Infinite Interpretations
ArchaicChaos commented 6 days ago
That's the problem with the letter of the law. It is open to interpretation. When Christians turned
the Bible, the NT, into a new letter of the law, which we were told not to do, we repeated those
same mistakes.

There are rules to interpretation. The Jews had them. Midrashic interpretation, Pesher method
hermeneutics... Christians have them as well. The historical-grammatical method, the historical-
critical method...

But this doesn't change the fact that you can use sound hermeneutics and exegesis and still come
to different conclusions sometimes. This is why we are to be under the law of the Spirit and not
the law of the letter.

Conflicting interpretations aren't what make people genuine or not though. But genuine people
don't go to war over theological differences.
Upvote9DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

r/BiblicalUnitarian•
What are your differences with Christadephians?
ArchaicChaos replied to Intrepid-Brick-4297 7 days ago
"Our sin nature," whatever that means. That's another issue entirely though. The concept does
presuppose Augustinian theology that seems very questionable.

The “Satan” in Job is probably a human who was jealous of Job.

That is a fairly wild view that takes quite a bit of substantiation.

There is no one Satan who is a fallen angel anywhere in the Old and New Testaments.

In Revelation, if you accept it, pretty clearly defines him as such.

The biggest problem with this concept of an impersonal devil and demons is that it falls under
the unfalsifiability fallacy in which nothing can be said which invalidates the view. The view is
too fluid to be regarded as a concrete statement, and thereby, is epistemically insufficient for the
basis of a knowledge claim. For example, in the wilderness temptations, the devil comes up to
Jesus in the Greek text, and yet, you will move the goalposts to say it was not a sin nature within
that he inherited from Adam, or his flesh, but a hallucination coming from elsewhere. I'm very
familiar with the yetzer hara and the apologetics but it isn't something that can be demonstrated.
Not only does it rely on shakey hamartiology and constantly fail its burden of proof, but it also
stems from arguments regarding poor apologetics from people who misunderstand passages of
the bible regarding the devil (such as Isaiah and the "Lucifer" passage). There is a middle
ground.
Upvote5DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

r/BiblicalUnitarian•
What are your differences with Christadephians?
ArchaicChaos commented 7 days ago
I'm not familiar enough with them to know what they're dogmatic about, but I don't agree with
their views on an impersonal devil, the lack of worship of Jesus, the lack of prayer to Christ, and
some of their structural issues.
Upvote5DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

r/BiblicalUnitarian•
Which is better NASB or REV?
ArchaicChaos commented 7 days ago
Depends. Depends on what you're using your Bible for, what your skill levels are, how familiar
you are with the texts, etc. Depends on what scripture you're looking at.

The NASB is a very "literal" Translation on the whole. It translates word for word most of the
time. Sometimes they get extremely theologically liberal and insert and add in words that aren't
in the text and are not needed for grammatical purposes. They add them to make a theological
point. Example, Philippians 2:6. They add in a few extra words to emphasize their take on what
they think the passage means when they didn't need to. This is good for if you want to know
what the original languages may have been pointing towards but you don't read the original
languages. But you still need a way to fact check it.
The REV is a dynamic equivalent translation. It gives you thought for though. What the text
meant in a way you can understand more easily. It is easier to read, and it is theologically biased
towards a Unitarian worldview. The translation committee has a reliance on E.W. Bullinger and
a lot of his work bleeds into the translation. There's an emphasis on certain figures of speech that
they add into the text. They use either the ASV or the NIV as a base text and translate it different
as they see the need to. The good thing about the REV is that the online version (the paper
version is NT only and outdated at this point) has a commentary that typically, where the
translation varies, they give their explanation for why the changed it. Maybe they did good,
maybe bad, but it's there for you to see.

The NKJV is a fairly standard Bible translation that does nothing particularly better or worse
than most other modern translations. The only real difference is its underlying reliance on the
Byzantine text type rather than the critical text type, which means some verses are going to
appear different in this version (John 3:13, 1 John 5:7, etc). The main reason people prefer it is
familiarity and tradition. I don't use it much because there are just better alternatives.

ESV is fairly literal but a lot easier to read. They found a good balance between the two
extremes.

As I always say, the best Bible is a Bible collection. Compare various Bible translations against
each other, don't stick with just one translation.
Upvote6DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

r/ksi•
Icl, but how does one achieve such build?
ArchaicChaos replied to MaintenanceNo6275 7 days ago
He already looks bald until he looks down
Upvote17DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

r/CringePurgatory•
Sorry, I just can't today
ArchaicChaos replied to ElectricalSheep2303 8 days ago
I can fix her
Upvote13DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

r/BiblicalUnitarian•
Jehovah’s Witnesses, Proof that your organization discourages
you from looking at anything beyond your denomination.
ArchaicChaos OP replied to Aggressive-Law2151 9 days ago
where did they deny what is in your post?

The two linked comments at the outset of it.... and in the replies to this post...

But: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101983037#h=7

Yeah and the paragraph immediately before it:

Jehovah’s Witnesses agree that it is the parents’ responsibility to give their children religious
instruction. Therefore, where religious instruction is given in class, Witness parents will
request that their children be excused.

As you said, "so which one is it?" They say that JWs can't sit in classes teaching religion. But
since the next paragraph says "but, they cab respectfully listen" is a contradiction.... what?
They're free to just choose which one of these paragraphs they listen to?

Read it carefully as well. This is why I give a translation. It says that a class cannot proselytize.
If they are, JWs can't be involved.

Ask yourself when on earth this can be upheld? What we know from the articles in the post and
the one you just gave from the Watchtower library, the following propositions have been stated
by the JW organization:

 You cannot take higher education classes or courses (no studying theology at a
university level)
 You cannot take a religious class that teaches because that's the job of the parent (for
children in any sort of primary, secondary schools)
 You cannot take classes that are to "proselytize" (if a local church opens its doors for
you to take their classes... this also stacks with the quotation in the post from the
Elders book about associating with other denominations and faiths)

So what imaginary class can a JW sit in and "respectfully listen" that doesn't fall under these
categories? You either have to admit that are lying through their teeth and being blatantly
dishonest, or incompetent contradictions are in their text, and you are left to the judgement of
their arbitrary members to decide what you are allowed and not allowed to do? Either is pretty
bad.

jws can’t listen to other religions on religion or they can

They say both. But it's pretty obvious that one is simply to sound less like a cult, which isn't
right, and the limits they've placed on it are so incredibly tight that it may as well be considered
to be negligible.
Upvote1DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare
r/BiblicalUnitarian•
Jehovah’s Witnesses, Proof that your organization discourages
you from looking at anything beyond your denomination.
ArchaicChaos OP replied to Aggressive-Law2151 9 days ago
If it were so clear, you wouldn't have links to JW apologists in the post that I pointed out by
name denying exactly what's in these articles and in these posts.

I wouldn't have posted this if there wasn't a need for it.

The translations are all necessary for people who have read these articles and still posted lengthy
responses denying it. And none of the translations are wrong.
Upvote1DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

r/ThatsInsane•
He was whooping the cop ass
ArchaicChaos commented 10 days ago
Considering this is America, he's lucky he only got tased after punching a cop in the head and
taking another swing at him
Upvote-2DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

r/Plumbing•
Did I get shocked
ArchaicChaos replied to ultranothing 10 days ago
I never let go. I'm still holding it as we speak
Upvote6DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

r/Plumbing•
Did I get shocked
ArchaicChaos replied to sandybuttcheekss 10 days ago
Probably half a second. I didn't even realize the feeling in my finger came back until I was
talking to the guy who was with me when it happened. He said "didn't you like lose feeling in
your hand?" And I started touching it and realized it came back.
Upvote4DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

r/CringePurgatory•
please make it stop
ArchaicChaos replied to Infinite_Yesterday94 10 days ago
Yeah. I mean I get it, humour is subjective. There are a lot of professional comedians I don't find
funny cough Amy Sch.... cough cough

I just don't think anyone can find this "funny" unless you find this kind of content funny.

The people downvoting me are the people who make these videos, unironically and not
satirically
Upvote0DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

r/ActualPublicFreakouts•
Guy tries to sucker punch staff, gets karma served
ArchaicChaos replied to tekko001 10 days ago
Oh wow. Thanks for the info. Mr. Heflin showed power, mercy, and justice. Incredible guy.
Much respect to him.

I don't blame him for bouncing though. Money can buy anything, even the freedom off an
innocent man. He wasn't wrong, but he was smart in leaving anyway.
Upvote3DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

r/Plumbing•
Did I get shocked
ArchaicChaos replied to cnycompguy 10 days ago
Been hit with 240v before. Can confirm, you know it instantly without question. I would
describe it as painful, I'd say it's just an incredibly uncomfortable feeling. Lost feeling in part of
that arm and in my ring finger for like 5 years.

Not a plumber, but I was working with electrical.

Upvote23DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

r/Christianity•
I am a Biblical Unitarian Christian, Ask Me Anything (Non-
Trinitarian)
ArchaicChaos OP replied to ProfessionalMood4917 10 days ago
Stopped reading after "disgusting." Shut up, piss off, and have a good day. Enjoy my blocked
list. Troll.
Upvote1DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare
r/CringePurgatory•
please make it stop
ArchaicChaos replied to Bottleinsurgency 10 days ago
Incorrect. To be a comedian, you have to be funny
Upvote-6DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

r/AskAChristian•
How do you counter this list of reason why Jesus is not the
messiah?
ArchaicChaos commented 10 days ago
They expect these things to happen when the Messiah comes the first time. They do not count on
a second coming. That is understandable, because there are no explicit prophecies about a second
coming. However, that doesn't mean that it can't be true. There can be a second coming that just
wasn't foretold until after the first coming.

The Messiah came and they killed him in about a year. They have no one to blame but
themselves for these things not happening. If Jesus had been left alone, those things would have
happened. But since he died, there is now a change that has been made. The Messiah will bring
these things to fruition, just not in the same way because Israel broke their covenant with God.
Upvote0DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

r/ActualPublicFreakouts•
Guy tries to sucker punch staff, gets karma served
ArchaicChaos commented 10 days ago
I would like to know the name of the guy in the black t-shirt, I want to send him a Christmas
card.
Upvote37DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

r/BiblicalUnitarian•
Hmm.... interesting.
ArchaicChaos replied to BlueGTA_1 10 days ago
My questions weren't personally directed at you, just generally. Because a lot of people
especially on this sub are worrying about particular portions of Enoch without even considering
these questions first.

I assumed a book from Enoch would of been God Breathed

This isn't a straightforward issue really. What you think makes something inspired or not, or how
we determine that, is a presupposition that has to be brought. What is your personal methodology
on what counts as scripture? This is sort of the heart of my question. If you don't know what that
standard is, that's where we would have to start when answering this question.

I personally don't think Enoch is inspired, no.

“And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of
Joshua”

It is true that, according to scripture, God said to write things down. There is a bit of an issue
with the fact that whatever Moses wrote, we don't have anymore. We don't have the 10
commandments in stone, the ark of the covenant, or anything like that. Another issue is that we
don't think Moses actually wrote Exodus. So was this taken from what Moses wrote and placed
in Exodus by whomever wrote it? There are a lot of underlying questions. Moses seems to have
been commanded to write these words for the Jewish people of that time to keep.

I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel”

At the end, we have John finalise the cannonisation and add a ring of finality to it by saying
'amen' and that no words shall be added or taken away.

Yes, those words being in reference only to the book of Revelation, not the whole NT. Most
scholars don't think John of Patmos, who wrote Revelation, is the same John as the gospel and
epistles of John. I tend to agree. The style of Greek is entirely different. John's gospel is using
double entendras while Revelation is full of grammatical issues like he wasn't the most fluent in
Greek. Probably an Aramaic speaking Jew. This being said, some have argued for an earlier date
of Revelation prior to the persecutions of the early church. If that early date is correct, then
Revelation could hypothetically be written before the pastoral epistles, Hebrews, Matthew
possible, likely Luke, definitely before John and 1-3 John, 2 Peter, James, and Jude. So.. it
couldn't be about those books. Just because it appears last in the canon doesn't mean it was the
last written. Mark appears 2nd in our canon, and appears as the last gospel in the western canon.
Yet, it was written first, Matthew and Luke (and possibly John) using it as a basis for their texts.
Revelation wasn't written with the intention of being "Bible," and so the curse placed at the end
of it wasn't to be applied to what you regard as a 66 or 72 book canon, and certainly not an 88
book canon including Enoch.

God's Word shall be preserved so we can know what God said / his plan.
"The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever" (Isaiah 40:8)

Is God's word a book? You are aware of the word of John's prologue. Is that a book? Take a look
at Luke 1:2, 8:11, and Galatians 2:5 should be kept in mind.

The "word of God" is not used in the Bible of the Bible ever. God's word is what God speaks.
Whether through a prophet, through his son (see Hebrews 1:2), or through his Spirit to us. Yes,
scripture can be one of the ways in which God speaks, but it is not the word of God. It's not the
only way, and not the subject of these verses.
For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the
Law until all is accomplished

There is a new heavens and a new earth in Christ. So what does that mean for the passing away
of the law? Compare this to Luke's parallel: "the law and the prophets were until John." See also
2 Corinthians 5:17. When does the old pass away and the new come?

Now scribes in BC were very careful not to miss anything out when making a copy of scripture
including the 'yod', they were very careful.

Not really. Take a look at our manuscript differences just in the LXX and the targums. The DSS
of the Isaiah scroll and the Masoretic text of Isaiah different in every single chapter (and
apparently almost every single verse, accounting for spelling and grammatical difficulties, which
would include an iota, the smallest mark)

i'm not a kjv only

I know. I wasn't saying that, I'm just saying it's a talking point exclusive to that crowd.

True but its always good to have this kind of information, i usually need it for
debates/discussions and for a better insight.

Couldn't agree more. We never know how much we don't know until it's laid on the table.
Upvote2DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

r/BiblicalUnitarian•
No man has seen God at any time, but the Son reveals God to
us!
ArchaicChaos replied to IcedCoffeeGuy24 11 days ago
yes
Upvote4DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

r/BiblicalUnitarian•
Hmm.... interesting.
ArchaicChaos replied to BlueGTA_1 11 days ago
If God promised to preserve his word what does this mean for these books?

Did he promise that? Is God's word a book? Is Enoch even a word of God?
People often use that (usually KJV onlyists), "God promised to preserve his word." Where?
When? What word? What does that mean? That a book written and claimed to be inspired by
God is going to have its words handed down to the end of time?

was the current canon from church intended this way as it is from God or was man given
leadership of what to count as canon?

There are different canons today. There's not one set canon. Canon is a long and complex issue. I
think the most simple answer is.... people are getting too held up on a book rather than the God
this book is meant to point you to.
Upvote2DownvoteReplyreplyShareShare

ArchaicChaos
Follow
Chat
9,072
Post Karma
37,016
Comment Karma
Dec 5, 2016
Cake day

TROPHY CASE

 Verified Email

 Seven-Year Club

Gilding I