christianmonotheism  resources   get involved   contact us   podcast
Calling Christians Worldwide to Return to the Creed of Jesus

found 93 items matching John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn

Commentary on Jeremiah 23.6  [1 page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, and John Lynn rated at 2.0 (7 votes so far)

When something is "called" a certain name, that does not mean that it is literally what it is called. Jerusalem is also called "the Lord our Righteousness," and Jerusalem is obviously not God (Jer. 33:16).Used with permission from biblicalunitarian.com

Commentary on 1 Timothy 3.16  [2 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, and John Lynn rated at 1.6 (6 votes so far)

Although the above verse in the NIV does not support the Trinity, there are some Greek manuscripts that read, "God appeared in the flesh." This reading of some Greek manuscripts has passed into some English versions, and the King James Version is one of them. Trinitarian scholars admit, however, that these Greek texts were altered by scribes in favor of the Trinitarian position. The reading of the earliest and best manuscripts is not "God" but rather "he who." Almost all the modern versions have the verse as "the mystery of godliness is great, which was manifest in the flesh," or some close equivalent.

Commentary on Colossians 1.15-20  [3 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, and John Lynn rated at 1.6 (6 votes so far)

As with all good biblical exegesis, it is important to note the context of the verses and why they would be written and placed where they are. Reading the Book of Colossians reveals that the Colossian Church had lost its focus on Christ. Some of the believers at Colosse had, in practice, forsaken their connection with the Head, Jesus Christ, and some were even being led to worship angels (2:18 and 19). The situation in Colosse called for a strong reminder of Christ’s headship over his Church, and the epistle to the Colossians provided just that.

Commentary on Revelation 1.8  [2 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, and John Lynn rated at 1.4 (6 votes so far)

What does it mean to be called the Alpha and Omega? Both God and Jesus are given this title.

Commentary on Genesis 1.26 and 11.7  [2 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, and John Lynn rated at 1.6 (7 votes so far)

This use of the plural is for amplification, and is called a "plural of majesty" or a "plural of emphasis," and is used for intensification (see note on Gen. 1:1). Many Hebrew scholars identify this use of "us" as the use of the plural of majesty or plural of emphasis, and we believe this also. Used with permission from biblicalunitarian.com

Commentary on Matthew 1.23  [1 page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.6 (6 votes so far)

The name can be translated as, “God with us” or “God is with us.” We know that God was with the people in Jesus Christ, and Jesus himself said that if one had seen him, he had seen the Father.

Commentary on John 1.15  [1 page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.4 (6 votes so far)

This verse is occasionally used to support the Trinity because it is assumed that for Jesus to come “before” John he would have had to exist before John. While it is true that the Greek word “before” (protos) can mean “before in time,” it can just as easily be “first,” “chief,” “leader,” etc.

Commentary on Luke 1.35  [3 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

There are some Trinitarians who insist that the term “Son of God” implies a pre- existence and that Jesus is God. Once the doctrine of pre-existence was propounded, a vocabulary had to be developed to support it, and thus non-biblical phrases such as “eternally begotten” and “eternal Son” were invented.

Commentary on John 14.11  [1 Page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

This verse is sometimes used to prove the Trinity, but it proves nothing of the kind. The exact same language about being “in” is used many times of Christians.

Commentary on John 14.16-17  [1 Page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

Some people assert that “the Holy Spirit” is a person because the Bible has “he” and “him” in these verses in John and in some other places. This assertion is invalid because the gender of the noun and pronoun have nothing to do with whether or not a person or thing is actually a person.

Commentary on John 17.5  [2 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

There is no question that Jesus “existed” before the world began. But did he exist literally as a person or in God’s foreknowledge, “in the mind of God?”

Commentary on John 20.17  [1 Page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

It is hard to see how Jesus can be assumed to be co-equal and co-eternal with God when he calls Him, “my God.” The Bible simply means what it says in this verse: God is indeed both our God and Jesus’ God.

Commentary on John 20.28  [2 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

“My Lord and my God.” There is no mention of the Trinity in the context, and there is no reason to believe that the disciples would have even been aware of such a doctrine. Thomas spoke what he would have known: that the man Jesus who he thought was dead was alive and had divine authority.

Commentary on Jude 4  [1 Page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

Modern textual research has shown that the word “God” in the phrase “the only Lord God” was not in the original text, but was added as the centuries progressed. Textual critics and translators recognize that fact and thus modern translations read in ways similar to the NASB (“our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ”).

Commentary John 2.24  [2 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

Daniel knew Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, even though Nebuchadnezzar had not revealed it to anyone (Dan. 2:5 and 28ff). By saying that Jesus knew all men, Scripture confirms that he was, like the prophets of old, in communication with God.

Commentary on John 10.33  [2 Pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

They called him what they believed he was—a “man.” They were offended because they believed that he, “being a man, made himself a god (i.e., someone with divine status).

Commentary John 3.13  [2 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

No one thinks that we were in heaven with Christ and incarnated into the flesh. Christ said, “As you have sent me, I have sent them.” So, however we take the phrase that Christ sent us, that is how we should understand the phrase that God sent Christ.

Commentary on John 5.18  [1 page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

Jesus was using God’s power and authority on earth, and was thus “equal” to God in the same way Joseph, who was using Pharaoh’s authority and power, was equal to Pharaoh.

Commentary on John 6.33  [1 page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

See notes on John 3:13

Commentary on John 6.38  [1 Page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

See notes on John 3:13.

Commentary on John 6.62  [1 page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

This verse is referring to the resurrection of Christ. This fact is clear from studying the context. Because the translators have chosen to translate anabaino as “ascend,” people believe it refers to Christ’s ascension from earth as recorded in Acts 1:9, but Acts 1:9 does not use this word.

Commentary on John 6.64  [2 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

Some Trinitarians act as if this verse proves that Jesus was God just because the word “beginning” is in the verse. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even a cursory word study will show that the word “beginning” has to be defined by its context.

Commentary on John 8.24  [1 page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

Trinitarians occasionally cite this verse to try to show the necessity of believing their doctrine, and unfortunately sometimes even to intimidate those who doubt it. They supply the word “God” after “I am,” not from the text, but from the dictates of their doctrine, and make the verse read: “For if you believe not that I am [God], ye shall die in your sins.”

Commentary on John 8.58  [2 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

Trinitarians argue that this verse states that Jesus said he was the “I am” (i.e., the Yahweh of the Old Testament), so he must be God. This is just not the case. Saying “I am” does not make a person God.

Commentary on John 10.18  [1 page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

See the notes on John 2:19.

Commentary on John 10.30  [1 page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

He said that no one could take them out of his hand and that no one could take them out of his Father’s hand. Then he said that he and the Father were “one,” i.e., had one purpose, which was to keep and protect the sheep.

Commentary on Luke 1.47  [2 Pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

Some Trinitarians believe that Christ must be God because they are both called “Savior.” There are many references to God the Father being called “Savior.” That makes perfect sense because He is the author of the plan of salvation and is also very active in our salvation.

Commentary on Luke 5.20-21  [1 Page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

There are those who believe that only God can forgive sins, but that is not true. For an explanation applicable to this verse, see Mark 2:7

Commentary on Revelation 1.11  [1 page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

Some texts in the Western tradition add the words, “I am the Alpha and Omega” to this verse, but textual scholars agree that the phrase is an addition to the text, and thus versions like the NIV, NASB, etc., do not have the addition (see the notes on Rev. 1:8).

Commentary on Revelation 1.13-15  [2 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

Many theologians have noticed the similarities between this description of Christ in Revelation, and the description of the “ancient of Days” (i.e., God) in Daniel 7:9 and Ezekiel 43:2. Thus, based on the similarities between the two descriptions, these verses are used to support the Trinity.

Commentary on Revelation 1.17  [2 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

If other titles apply to God, Christ and men without making all of them into “one God,” then there is no reason to assume that this particular title would mean they were one God unless Scripture specifically told us so, which it does not.

Commentary on Revelation 3.14  [1 Page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

As it is translated above, there is no Trinitarian inference in the verse. It agrees perfectly with what we know from the whole of Scripture: that God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ.

Commentary on Revelation 21.6  [1 Page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

The exact meaning of the phrase “the Beginning and the End” is not given. Scholars give differing explanations of the phrase, but the meaning must be closely associated with the concepts of “Alpha and Omega” and “First and Last” because these titles are associated together

Commentary on Revelation 22.13  [1 page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

or commentary on the phrase “Alpha and Omega,” see the notes on Revelation 1:8; on “the First and Last,” see the notes on Revelation 1:17; on “the Beginning and the End,” see the notes on Revelation 21:6.

Commentary on Roman 9.5  [2 Pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

The entire context of Romans 9:5 is describing God’s blessings to the Jews, who have a heritage of being aggressively monotheistic. An insert about Christ being God seems most inappropriate.

Commentary on Romans 10.9  [1 page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

We must recognize that it was God who made Jesus “Lord.” Acts 2:36 says: “God has made this Jesus...both Lord and Christ.” If “Lord” equals “God,” then somehow God made Jesus “God,” which is something that even Trinitarians do not teach, because it is vital to Trinitarian doctrine that Jesus be co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.

Commentary on Romans 10.13  [2 Pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

The context of this verse in Romans makes it clear that the “Lord” referred to in this verse is the Lord Jesus Christ. However, this verse is a quotation from Joel 2:32 in the Old Testament, and in Joel the “Lord” is Yahweh. That has caused some Trinitarians to say that Jesus is God.

Commentary on Revelation 1.8  [2 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

These words apply to God, not to Christ. The one, “who is, and who was and who is to come” is clearly identified from the context

Commentary on Philippians 2.6-8  [7 page]
by John Schoenheit rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

These verses in Philippians are very important to Trinitarian doctrine (although they have also caused division among Trinitarians) and they must be dealt with thoroughly. There are several arguments wrapped into these two verses, and we will deal with them point by point.

Commentary on Luke 7.16  [1 Page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

Occasionally, Trinitarians will cite this verse as proof that Jesus is God, because it states that God visited His people. However, that phrase in no way proves the Trinity. Any word or phrase in Scripture must be interpreted in light of both its immediate and remote contexts.

Commentary on Luke 8.39  [1 Page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

God works His miracles through people. Thus, whenever a miracle is performed, there are thanks for the one who stood in faith and performed the miracle, and also thanks and glory to God who supplied the power and actually did the work.

Commentary on Mark 2.7  [1 page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

John 20:23 records Jesus saying to them: “If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven.” If the Pharisees were right, and only God can forgive sins, then God, Jesus and the apostles were all God, because they all had the authority to forgive sins.

Commentary on Matthew 4.10  []
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

It is sometimes stated that since we are to worship only God, and, because we are also supposed to worship Jesus, therefore he must be God. That argument is not valid because, although there is a special worship that is reserved just for God, we can “worship” certain people as well.

Commentary on Matthew 9.2-3  [1 page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

This is a similar record to Mark 2:7 and the explanation can be found there.

Commentary on Matthew 9-8   [1 page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

Although this verse is sometimes used to “prove” that Christ is God, the verse actually militates against the idea. Scripture states very clearly that Jesus was a man.

Commentary on Matthew 28.18  [1 page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

Carefully reading a verse is the only way to begin to properly interpret it. In this case, it is clear that Christ’s authority was given to him.

Commentary on Matthew 28.19  [3 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

In reading the book of Matthew, we note that there is no presentation of the doctrine of the Trinity. Some prominent Trinitarians doubt that the apostles were even introduced to the doctrine until after they received holy spirit. It would be strange indeed for Christ to introduce the doctrine of the Trinity here in the next-to-last verse in the book without it being mentioned earlier.

Commentary on Matthew 28.20  [1 page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

Occasionally this verse is used to prove the Trinity because it is said that the only way that Jesus could always be with his Church is if he were God. However, that is an unproven assumption, and is not stated in Scripture.

Commentary on Titus 2.13  [2 Pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

It makes perfect sense for Scripture to call Christ “the glory of God” and for the Bible to exhort us to say “no” to ungodliness in light of the coming of the Lord, which will be quickly followed by the Judgment (Matt. 25:31-33; Luke 21:36)

Commentary on John 2.19  [2 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

Christ knew that by his thoughts and actions he could guarantee his own resurrection by being sinlessly obedient unto death. That made it legally possible for God to keep His promise of resurrecting Christ, who was without sin and therefore did not deserve death, the “wages of sin.”

Commentary on Deuteronomy 6.4  [2 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, and John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

It is believed by some that the Hebrew word "one" (echad) that is used in Deuteronomy 6:4 and other verses indicates a "compound unity." This is just not true. Used with permission from biblicalunitarian.com

Commentary on 1 John 5.20  [3 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, and John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

Many Trinitarians claim that the final sentence in the verse, "This is the true God," refers to Jesus Christ, since the closest noun to "This" is "Jesus Christ." However, since God and Jesus are both referred to in the first sentence of the verse, the final sentence can refer to either one of them. The word "this," which begins the last sentence, is houtos, and a study of it will show that the context, not the closest noun or pronoun, must determine to whom "this" is referring. The Bible provides examples of this

Commentary 1 Timothy 5.21  [1 page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, and John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

This verse has an element that is very hard to explain if the Trinity is true, and makes perfect sense if it is not. Paul charges Timothy by God, by Christ and by "the elect angels." This fits beautifully with what we teach; i.e., that there is the one God, and there is the man Jesus who has been made "Lord and Christ," but there is no "person" called "the Holy Spirit." If there were a Trinity composed of three co-equal, co-eternal "persons," why would Paul charge Timothy by the "elect angels" and leave the "Holy Spirit" out of the picture?

Commentary on 1 Timothy 6.14-16  [2 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, and John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

It is stated by Trinitarians that since God is called "King of kings and Lord of lords," as is Christ, that Christ must be God. However, simply because the same title is used for two individuals does not mean that they are actually somehow one being.

Commentary on 2 Corinthians 5.19  [1 page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, and John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

As this verse is translated in the NIV, it does not have a Trinitarian meaning. Some Trinitarians use the concept from some other translations that "God was in Christ" to prove the Trinity. If the Trinity were true, then God could not be "in" Christ as if Christ were a container. If the Trinity were in fact a true doctrine, then this would be a wonderful place to express it and say, “God was Christ.”

Commentary on 2 Corinthians 12.19b  [1 page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, and John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

The Greek text contains a difficult construction, and reads, “God in Christ,” which has caused some to believe it is a reference to the Trinity. Not at all. If anything, it tends to refute the Trinity

Commentary on 2 Corinthians 13.14  [2 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, and John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

This closing verse of the epistle of 2 Corinthians is a doxology, and is typical of how Paul closes his epistles. Galatians, Philippians and both Thessalonian epistles close with “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The close of Ephesians includes “love with faith from God.” There is no reason to conclude that a closing doxology would not incorporate three wonderful attributes: the love of God, the grace of Christ and the fellowship of the spirit.

Commentary on 2 Peter 1.1b  [2 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, and John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

Some Trinitarians try to force this verse to “prove” the Trinity by what is known as the Granville Sharp Rule of Greek grammar. We have shown that this is not a valid proof of the Trinity

Commentary on 2 Thessalonians 1.12  [1 page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, and John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

Some Trinitarians try to force this verse to “prove” the Trinity by what is known as the Granville Sharp Rule of Greek grammar. We have shown that this is not a valid proof of the Trinity

Commentary on 1 John 5.7-8  [3 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, and John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

The King James Version has words that support the Trinity that most modern versions do not have. How can this be? The reason that there are different translations of this verse is that some Greek texts contain an addition that was not original, and that addition was placed into some English versions, such as the KJV.

Commentary on 1 John 4.1-3  [3 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, and John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

Many Christians use the above verses in an attempt to prove that one must believe that Jesus is God in order to be saved. We assert that this is not at all what the verses are saying. To understand them, it is most important that we read what is written, and not add our interpolation to the text. Then, to really understand why they were written the way they are, we must understand the cultural context in which they were written, as well as the overall context of 1 John itself.

Commentary on 1 Corinthians 10.4  [2 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, and John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

This verse is only a problem if it is misunderstood or mistranslated. Some Trinitarians use it to teach that Christ was actually with the Israelites, following them around. However, the Old Testament makes no mention of Christ being with the Israelites in the wilderness. And if he had been, he certainly would not have been "following" them.

Commentary on Genesis 1.1  [3 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, and John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

The word "God" is Elohim, which is itself a plural form and, like most other words, has more than one definition. It is used in a plural sense of "gods" or "men with authority," and in a singular sense for "God," "god," or "a man with authority, such as a judge." Used with permission from biblicalunitarian.com

Commentary on Genesis 16.7-13  [4 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, and John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

It is believed by some Trinitarians that in the Old Testament "the angel of the Lord" is Jesus Christ before he supposedly "incarnated" as a human. This point is disputed by many, and with good reason. There is not a single verse that actually says that Jesus Christ is the angel of the Lord. The entire doctrine is built from assumption. Used with permission from biblicalunitarian.com

Commentary on Genesis 18.1-2  [5 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, and John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

These verses pose a problem for Christians who have been taught that no one has ever seen God. The Hebrew text clearly says that Yahweh appeared to Abraham in the form of a man, and He was with two angels, who also took on human appearance.Used with permission from biblicalunitarian.com

Commentary on Isaiah 9.6  [2 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, and John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

The context illuminates great truth about the verse, and also shows that there is no justification for believing that it refers to the Trinity, but rather to God's appointed ruler.Used with permission from biblicalunitarian.com

Commentary on Jeremiah 17.5  [1 page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, and John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

Occasionally, a Trinitarian will argue that Jesus cannot be a man because we are expected to trust Jesus, but not to trust men. We feel that analysis misses the point of this verse, and we remind the reader that the entire verse and its context must be read to get its proper meaning.Used with permission from biblicalunitarian.com

Commentary on Micah 5.2  [1 page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, and John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

No Jew ever thought God could be born, and the thought of the Creator of the Heavens and earth having brothers was absurd to them. These verses are speaking of God's anointed king, and the Word declares, not that this ruler will be God, but rather that Yahweh will be "his God" (v. 4).Used with permission from biblicalunitarian.com

Commentary on Proverbs 8.23  [1 page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, and John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

Occasionally, a Trinitarian will use this verse to try to support the Trinity and the preexistence of Christ by saying that "wisdom" was appointed from eternity, Christ is the "wisdom of God" (1 Cor. 1:24) and, therefore, Christ was from eternity. This position has not found strong support even among Trinitarians, and for good reason.Used with permission from biblicalunitarian.com

Commentary on Psalm 110.1  [5 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, and John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

Trinitarian commentators frequently argue that "my Lord" in this verse is the Hebrew word adonai, another name for God, and is therefore proof of the divinity of the Messiah. But not only is this not a valid argument, this verse is actually one of the great proofs of the complete humanity of the promised Messiah.Used with permission from biblicalunitarian.com

Commentary on 2 Timothy 4.1  [1 page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, and John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

There is no logical reason for this verse to have a double reference to Christ by making the word “God” refer to Jesus Christ, thus removing “God” (normally understood to be the Father) from the verse entirely.

Commentary on Acts 5.3-4  [2 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, and John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

We must understand that both “God” and “pneuma hagion” (“holy spirit”) can refer to something other than a separate “person” in the Trinity. Since there is no verse that actually states the doctrine of the Trinity, its existence is built from assumption and by piecing verses together. Verses such as Acts 5:3 and 4 are used as “proof,” for the doctrine, but that is actually circular reasoning.

Commentary on Acts 7:45  [2 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, and John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

Although the King James English makes this verse a little hard to understand, it is saying that Jesus was the one who brought the Israelites into the Promised Land. This is a case of mistranslation. The name “Jesus” and the name “Joshua” are the same, and on two occasions the translators of the KJV confused them. This point is well established by William Barclay, a professor and author at Trinity College in Glasgow.

Commentary on Hebrews 2.16  [1 page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

Because in the context, it so clearly states that Jesus was “like his brothers in every way” (v. 17), there can be no reference to the Trinity in this verse. If the Trinity is correct and Jesus had both an eternal nature and human nature, he is hardly like us “in every way.”

Commentary on Hewbrews 4.8  [1 Page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

In some versions, the name “Joshua” was mistranslated as “Jesus,” which makes it sound as if Jesus were in the Old Testament. The names “Jesus” and “Joshua” are the same in Hebrew and Greek, and the translators of the KJV, for example, confused the names.

Commentary Hebrews 7.3  [1 Page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

There are some Trinitarians who teach that Melchizedek was actually Jesus Christ because this verse says he was without Father or mother, beginning or end of life, etc. This cannot be the case, and misses the point of this entire section of Scripture

Commentary Hebrews 13.8  [1 page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

Believers were being led astray by new teachings, and the author of Hebrews was reminding them that Jesus Christ does not change. The truth about him yesterday is the same now and will be the same in the future.

Commentary on John 1.1  [8 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

To fully understand any passage of Scripture, it is imperative to study the context. To fully understand John 1:1, the rest of the chapter needs to be understood as well, and the rest of the chapter adds more understanding to John 1:1. We believe that these notes on John 1:1, read together with the rest of John 1 and our notes on John 1:3,10,14,15, and 18 will help make the entire first chapter of John more understandable.

Commentary on John 1.3  [4 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

The opening of John reveals this simple truth in a beautiful way: “In the beginning there was one God, who had reason, purpose and a plan, which was, by its very nature and origin, divine. It was through and on account of this reason, plan and purpose that everything was made. Nothing was made outside its scope. Then, this plan became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ and tabernacled among us.” Understanding the opening of John this way fits with the whole of Scripture and is entirely acceptable from a translation standpoint.

Commentary on John 1.10  [1 page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

This verse is a reference to the Father, not to Christ. A study of the context reveals that this section opens in verse 6 by telling us, “There came a man who was sent by God.” We are told, “God is light,” and that God’s light shown through Jesus Christ and made him “the light of the world.”

Commentary on John 1.14  [2 Pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

The “Word” is the wisdom, plan or purpose of God (see John 1:1) and the Word “became flesh” as Jesus Christ. Thus, Jesus Christ was “the Word in the flesh,” which is shortened to “the Word” for ease of speaking.

Commentary Hebrews 1.10  [2 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

This verse is quoted from the Old Testament (Ps.102:25), where it applied to Yahweh, and the author of Hebrews is lifting it from the Psalms and applying it to Jesus Christ. The subject of the verse changes from Yahweh (Old Testament) to Jesus Christ (New Testament). It makes sense, therefore, that the action being attributed changes also.

Commentary on Hebrews 1.8  [4 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

The verse is a quotation from Psalm 45:6,7. The Jews read this verse for centuries and, knowing the flexibility of the word “God,” never concluded that the Messiah would somehow be part of a Triune God.

Commentary on Hebrews 1.2  [3 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

1. The Greek word translated “universe” (or “world” in many translations) is the plural of the Greek word aion, and actually means “ages.” There are other Greek words that mean “world,” such as kosmos and oikoumene, and when the Devil tempted Jesus by showing him all the kingdoms of the “world,” these words are used. This verse is referring to the “ages,” not the “world.”

Commentary on Acts 7.59  [1 page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, and John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

This verse supports the idea of the Trinity only as it appears in some translations.

Commentary on Acts 20.28b  [1 page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, and John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

There are some Greek manuscripts that read “the church of the Lord” instead of “the church of God.” Many Trinitarian scholars believe that “Lord” is the original reading, because there is no mention anywhere in the Bible of God having blood. If the Greek manuscripts that read “Lord” are the original ones, then the “problem” is solved. However, it is the belief of the authors that good textual research shows that “the church of God” is the correct reading.

Commentary on Colossians 2.2  [2 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, and John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

This verse, although not usually considered a Trinitarian verse, is occasionally used to show that the mystery of God is Christ (i.e., that Christ is both God and Man, and thus a “mystery”).

Commentary on Colossians 2.9  [2 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, and John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

The word “Deity” or “Godhead” is a translation of the Greek word theotes. In A Greek English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott, the classic lexicon of the ancient Greek language, it is translated as “divinity, divine nature.” In making their case, Liddell and Scott cite Greek authors Plutarch and Lucian, and also reference Heliodorus and Oribasius using the phrase dia theoteta = “for religious reasons.” The Greek word occurs only once in the Bible, so to try to build a case for it meaning “God” or “Godhead” (which is an unclear term in itself) is very suspect indeed.

Commentary on Ephesians 1.22 and 23  [1 page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, and John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

There are some Trinitarians who assert that the last phrase of verse 23 proves the Trinity. Not so, for there is no mention of any Trinitarian concept such as “three-in-one.” This verse clearly teaches that God was the one who “appointed” Christ to be over the Church. Surely if Christ were a co-equal part of God, he needed no such appointment, because by nature he would already have been over the Church.

Commentary on Ephesians 3.9  [1 page]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, and John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

This verse is not a problem in most translations, because most do not have the phrase, “by Jesus Christ,” at the end of the verse. Apparently this phrase was added to some Greek manuscripts as debates about the Trinity caused some scribes to “augment” their position by adding to the Word of God, or it could have been a marginal note that was accidentally copied into some manuscripts.

Commentary on Ephesians 4.7 and 8  [2 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, and John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

Verse 8 is a quotation from the Old Testament, where the context is referring to what God did, so there are some who say that if the verse is applied to Christ, then Christ must be God. However, it is common for a verse is to be interpreted one way in the Old Testament and then applied or interpreted differently in the New Testament.

Commentary on Ephesians 5.5  [5 pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, and John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

Using this verse, some Trinitarians try to make Christ into God by what is known as the “Granville Sharp Rule.” The following explanation is lengthy, but it is necessary to show that this “rule” has been properly analyzed and shown to be invalid for proving the Trinity. Granville Sharp was an English philanthropist, who began to study the grammar of the New Testament in order to demonstrate that his Trinitarian beliefs were correct and that Christ was God. From his study of the New Testament, he declared that when the Greek word kai (usually translated “and”) joins two nouns of the same case, and the first noun has the definite article and the second does not, the two nouns refer to the same subject. This is the principle behind the “rule,” but there are a large number of exceptions to it that must be noted.

Commentary on John 1.18  [2 Pages]
by John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser, John Lynn rated at 1.0 (5 votes so far)

Even if the original text reads “God” and not “Son,” that still does not prove the Trinity. The word “God” has a wider application in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek than it does in English. It can be used of men who have divine authority (See John 10:33 and Heb. 1:8 below).



<< back to the options
Alex Hall (7) 
Allon Maxwell (1) 
Anthony Buzzard (19) 
Anthony Buzzard & Jamie Engel... (1) 
Anthony Buzzard vs. Drew Ayers (1) 
Anthony Buzzard vs. Fred Sand... (1) 
Bernie Power (0) 
Brian Kelly (1) 
Bruce Reye (1) 
Carlos Jimenez (1) 
Christadelphians vs. Gospel T... (1) 
Christopher Amelung (1) 
Chuck Jones (5) 
Chuck LaMattina (4) 
Clarissa Neumer (1) 
Dale Tuggy (2) 
Dan Mages & Patrick Navas vs.... (1) 
Daniel Calcagno (1) 
Danny Dixon (1) 
Danny Dixon vs. Marc Taylor (2) 
Dave Hixon (1) 
David Kemball-Cook (1) 
David Krogh (1) 
David Maas (8) 
Don Snedeker (1) 
Duncan Heaster vs. Leslie Eve... (1) 
Dustin Smith (2) 
Dustin Smith & J.J. Fletcher (2) 
Dustin Smith & Sean Finnegan (4) 
Faircloth & Gaston vs. Fox & ... (1) 
Friedrich Loofs (1) 
George Littler (1) 
Greer Dixon & Mages vs. Colea... (1) 
Harold Doan (1) 
J. Dan Gill (4) 
Jack Hearp (1) 
Jay Dicken (26) 
Jeff Fletcher (3) 
Jesse Acuff (1) 
Jim Rankin (1) 
Joel Hemphill (2) 
John Cortright (1) 
John Railton (1) 
John Schoenheit, Mark Graeser... (93) 
Jonathan Burke vs. Nick Norelli (1) 
K. Michael Errington (1) 
Ken Westby (2) 
Kenneth Milne (1) 
Kermit Zarley (3) 
M. G. Dockery (1) 
Matthew Janzen (5) 
Matthew Janzen vs. Michael Bugg (1) 
Mel Hershberger (1) 
Mike Hicks (3) 
Mike Montgomery (1) 
Nathan Crowder (3) 
Patrick Navas (1) 
Patrick Navas vs. Brian Garcia (1) 
Patrick Navas vs. James White (3) 
Paul Johnson (1) 
Paul Rankin (1) 
Ray Faircloth (17) 
Raymond James Essoe (1) 
Robin Todd (1) 
Roger Cupp (1) 
Russ Magaw (1) 
Samuel Barrett (1) 
Scott Ross (1) 
Sean Finnegan (55) 
Sean Finnegan vs. Brant Bosse... (1) 
Sean Finnegan vs. Russ Dizdar (1) 
Sean Holbrook (1) 
Sean Kelly (1) 
Shahir Naga (0) 
Shane Derry (2) 
Steve Katsaras (24) 
Steve Katsaras vs. Bernie Pow... (3) 
Steve Taylor (4) 
Terry M. Ferrell (2) 
Tony Dart (1) 
Victor Gluckin (3) 
Vince Finnegan (3) 
Wally Winner (1) 
Walter Wiggins (1) 
William Wachtel (3) 
Z.B. Duncan (2) 



books

These books, written by people from diverse backgrounds, express the simple truth that God is one. Some of them are more scholary while others are more autobiographical. In addition, a few of them are available to read online. If you would like more in depth treatment of christian monotheism, these books are the next step to take. Note: if you know of other books, not listed here, please leave us feedback.

home | media center | get involved | contact info