Jesus Is Yahweh's Unique Dwelling Place II

In a prior post I suggested that Jesus is Yahweh's Unique Dwelling Place. I have also been discussing the Authentic Humanity of Jesus Christ. These two topics are inseparably interwoven from my perspective but this one will pick up where the first one left off. While discussing Jesus as the unique dwelling place of Yahweh* we also discussed the name of Jesus. In this post I wanted to expand on what it means for Jesus to be that "unique dwelling place". What does this mean?

In Israel's history Jersusalem, the Temple Mount and the Temple were all considered holy because God's name and presence dwelled there (See 2 Sam. 7:13; 1 Kings 3:2 and Isa 18:7). Notice the following renderings of Psalm 26:8:

Lord, I have loved the beauty of thy house, and the place of the tabernacle of thy glory. LXX

O LORD, I love Your temple abode, the dwelling-place of Your glory. JPS TNK

O LORD, I love the habitation of your house and the place where your glory dwells. ESV

Also notice Isaiah 59:19:

So they shall fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun; for he will come like a rushing stream, which the wind of the LORD drives. ESV

The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT) suggests the Hebrew word for "glory" in these texts refer to a "manifestation of Yahweh"(1).Jesus being the Temple means that He has replaced the Temple where sacrifices were once made. Jesus then is where the glory, name and presence of Yahweh lives and is now manifest permanently. Translator R.G. Bratcher suggests that Yahweh's glory is:
the manifestation of his presence and power, usually described in terms of a dazzling light (see Exo 33:18, 22; 40:34; 1 Kgs 8:10–11). The place where thy glory dwells is sometimes difficult to translate, because glory is normally an attributive of God and not an animate being which can be said to perform the act of dwelling. However, by recasting this expression it is possible to say something like "the place where you are gloriously present,"(2)
In Psalm 26:8 we see that David loved the house of God. Was it because of the instruments? Was it because of the design? I am sure those items were precious to David and impressive on a large scale. However, David loved the house of God because that is where Yahweh was present. J.E. Smith noted, "David loved the house of God, the sanctuary where Yahweh dwelt among his people (Exod 25:8f.). Yahweh’s "glory" is his manifested presence, of which the ark was the outward symbol."(3)

The glory of God by its very nature is pre-existent. It was this glory, the very presence of Yahweh Himself, that revealed Himself in the flesh and blood of Jesus of Nazareth. What no scribe would say the Apostle John says, the Word was with God and yet is God (John 1:1). The dwelling place of God was no longer Jerusalem, the Temple Mount or even the Temple in all of its splendor. The Gospel of John records that the "Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14 ESV) or "Word became flesh and took up residence among us" LEB. T.F. Torrance noted that here "John is clearly thinking of the Old Testament tabernacle, the moving tent of meeting, as it was called, the place where God and man met and God revealed himself to man."(4)  To say that God was in Christ (2 Cor. 5:19) is to say that Yahweh was in Christ. In Christ Yahweh, Himself, tabernacles among us. In Zechariah 12:10 the prophet foretold something that could only be fulfilled in Christ Jesus:

"...when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn." ESV

"...they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn." NASB

"...they will look to me, the one they have pierced. They will lament for him as one laments for an only son, and there will be a bitter cry for him like the bitter cry for a firstborn." NET

The pronoun "me" is a reference to Yahweh, the speaker. Some have stumbled here and have sought to understand this verse in different ways. Largely because this verse raises the question of how Yahweh could be pierced? How can such a thing ever be true? In some places to reject the prophets was to reject the Lord (2 Chron. 36:15-16) but how can one say it is the Lord Himself who has been pierced? Only in Jesus. Jesus said that to see Him was to see the Father (John 12:45; 14:9-10). To pierce Jesus then was to pierce Yahweh.

But what about "They will lament for him"? It is quite common for the author to shift from first person to third person in Biblical texts. This can be done without change of antecedent. In Zechariah 12:7-9 Yahweh speaks in first person but alternates with third person language also by going from "I" to "the Lord". Jesus is not merely a representative of Yahweh nor is He merely the second of three divine persons. Jesus is the only one who can be Yahweh and Messiah.

In John 2:19 Jesus says, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." ESV Here the Jews misunderstood what Jesus was thinking. They thought he was referring to the Temple of Jerusalem. Jesus however replaces the Temple with Himself since after His death it is He who was raised. Here we can see how John uses double-level thinking. Those standing around Jesus probably missed the true implications of what Jesus had said for in those words are revealed something important about the identity of Jesus. Jesus is now the place where God's name and presence dwells. In Jesus God has made Himself fully known to man. God has literally ptiched his tent and tabernacled (See Psalm 26:8; 135:2) among us (See John 1:1, 14, 18; Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 3:16).


1) Koehler, L. and Baumgartner, W. et al. The Hebrew & Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament © 1994-2000 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. All rights reserved

2) Bratcher, Robert G. and William David Reyburn. A Translator's Handbook on the Book of Psalms. UBS Handbook Series. New York: United Bible Societies, 1991.

3) Smith, James E. The Wisdom Literature and Psalms. Old Testament Survey Series. Joplin, MO: College Press Pub. Co., 1996.

4) Torrance, Thomas F. Incarnation: The Person and Life of Christ (c) 2008 by Thomas F. Torrance and Robert T. Walker. Intervarsity Press Academic publishing. (pg. 59)

*Yahweh here is used the same as one would say God. God in each instance is a reference to Yahweh. The personal name of the God of Israel. Read the conversation of Jesus and the Jewish scribe at Mark 12:29-30.


Principles of the Reformation by Robert Richardson

Robert Richardson was a theologian who lived from 1806 until 1876. He was the personal friend and physician of Alexander Campbell. Richardson was also associate editor and office manager for Campbell's "Millennial Harbinger" for nearly 30 years where he "fairly represented" the views of the early restoration movement. Richardson also wrote a two volume work called the Memoirs of Alexander Campbell. Richardson would also attend Campbell's death and even speak at his funeral.

In the chapter "The Basis of Christian Union" Richardson mentions "those who are Unitarian or Sabellian in faith". Here Richardson makes the reader aware that he is familiar with such non-Trinitarian systems. Richardson presses for strict "language of the Bible" and rejects "all that scholastic jargon". He does not seek to establish an elaborate doctrine of the Trinity anywhere. He simply affirms that "whatever character, office, or relation, is assigned to the Father, to the Son, or to the Holy Spirit in Sacred Scripture." (pg. 65) While speaking of the subject of repentance Richardson notes that in Acts 2:38 the preaching of Peter brought pierced hearts and a command to reform or repent. In his chapter about the Holy Spirit Richardson rightly notes, "The possession of the Spirit is indeed the very evidence of sonship, and the proof that the gospel has been truly believed." (pg. 90)

Around 1852 Richardson compiled Principles of Reformation in order to present a clear and yet concise outline of early restoration beliefs in North America. This work is around 100 pages long and evenly edited by Carson A. Reed. The table of contents include an introduction by Reed followed by a letter to the reader. The nine chapters include titles such as "Distinction between Faith and Opinion"; "The Christian Faith"; "The Basis of Christian Union"; "Patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian Institutions"; "Commencement of the Christian Church"; "The Action and Design of Baptism" and "The Agency of the Holy Spirit in Conversion and Sanctification." as well as others.

Reed notes that in 1856 "a series of conflicts would erupt" causing a segment of the restoration movement to go down a path that Richardson and others did not want to go. He suggests, "Along that path, many of the principles that Campbell, Richardson and other early leaders held highly would no longer be plainly visible on the horizon." (pg. 9) Reed also suggests that Richardson's views were "largely rejected" by southern churches and that "Many of the southern churches took a fork in the river of ideas that fostered a stark rationalism devoid of the Holy Spirit." (pg. 10) Reed also points out that Richardson held Baptism as a sign or seal that does not save. It is a sign that the believer has been pardoned. (pg. 20)

You can also find another review of this work by Douglas Foster here. You can purchase this paperback edition of Principles of the Reformation here. Anyone interested in early North American church history will enjoy the irenic and Christological tenor of Richardson's writings.


Roger Perkins Responds to Jeffrey Krause

Comments by Perkins in orange followed by Krause comments in blue.

While I certainly don't have the time to scurry behind every latest on-line trinitarian "Apologist" who levels charges against me, I came across a recent article of outright erroneous attacks from one "Jeffrey Krause" that I decided to briefly address below. My responses appear beneath his remarks in the ensuing article that I have broken up into pieces in order to dissect his accusations. I would like to thank James Anderson and Manuel Culwell for giving me this venue of response. They are fine gentlemen and I greatly value their friendship.

Firstly, it is immediately clear that perhaps Mr. Krause needs a few lessons in grammatical application. He begins his tirade with, "The DISHONESTLY of Oneness Advocate Roger Perkins". Indeed, it is hard to attend to anything one has to offer regarding ancient languages if they cannot even adequately handle their own native tongue...but we shall try! 

I’m not quite sure how to state this gently, but, Oneness Pentecostal Debater Roger Perkins is either, (1) a very poor student of Scripture and Scriptural aids, or, (2) is completely dishonest.

Ahhh yes....The ol' familiar "dishonesty" charge from the "Reform" camp. Not a few have noted the odd tendency among reform scholars to quickly label anyone who disagrees with them as "dishonest" [in this case "dishonestLy"], which is itself a deceptive and dishonest tactic. Perhaps we should stick to the issues and leave the muddied perceptions out of the loop, since they are entirely irrelevant to the topics under consideration. 

In his recent debate with Dr. James R. White on the doctrine of the Trinity, Mr. Perkins repeatedly referred to Col. 1:15 and stated that “Bauer’s” (as he calls it) Lexicon described the word “image” (εἰκών) as “a human figure.” However, this is simply not the case regarding “Bauer’s” and the use of “image” in Col. 1:15. The Lexicon that Perkins is referring to is “A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature,” more popularly known as the BDAG.

Actually, I wasn't even referring to "BDAG," or I would have stated such! I was referring to the 2nd edition, which is commonly referred to as simply "Bauer's," just as I stated! Perhaps trinitarians would do well to attend to detail before launching into unwarranted attacks. I wasn't even referencing the lexicon Krause charges me with quoting. I was quoting the one I said I was quoting! Concerning my misquote of BAGD, I was going off memory in a fast-paced cross-exam & did not have the actual lexicon in front of me, hence the acknowledged misapplication [albeit not "dishonestLy"]. However, here is the actual quote from BAGD that I was referring to w/ regard to Col. 1:15:

εἰκών, όνος, ἡ (Aeschyl., Hdt.+; inscr., pap., LXX, En., Ep. Arist. 135; Philo; Jos., Ant. 15, 277; Test. 12 Patr.; Sib. Or. 3, 8; loanw. in rabb.).

1. image, likeness—
a. lit. of the emperor’s head on a coin (so Artem. 4, 31; of the emperor’s image Jos., Bell. 2, 169; 194, Ant. 19, 185) Mt 22:20; Mk 12:16; Lk 20:24. Of an image of a god (Diod. S. 2, 8, 7 [Zeus]; Appian, Mithrid. 117 §575 θεῶν εἰκόνες; Lucian, Sacr. 11; 2 Ch 33:7; Is 40:19) Rv 13:14f; 14:9, 11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4.

b. fig. εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ of a man (cf. Wilcken, Chrest. 109, 11 [III BC] Philopator as εἰκὼν τοῦ Διός; Rosetta Stone=Dit., Or. 90, 3 [196 BC] Ptolemy V as εἰκὼν ζῶσα τοῦ Διός, cf. APF 1, ’01, 483, 11; Plut., Themist. 27, 4; Lucian, Pro Imag. 28 εἰκόνα θεοῦ τ. ἄνθρωπον εἶναι; Diog. L. 6, 51 τ. ἀγαθοὺς ἄνδρας θεῶν εἰκόνας εἶναι; Sextus 190; Herm. Wr. 1, 12 al.; Apuleius as image of God, Rtzst., Mysterienrel.3 43; JHehn, Zum Terminus ‘Bild Gottes’: ESachau-Festschr. ’15, 36-52) 1 Cor 11:7 (on the gradation here cf. Herm. Wr. 11, 15a); OF CHRIST (Helios as εἰκών of deity: Pla., Rep. 6 p. 509; Proclus, Hymni 1, 33f [Orphica p. 277 Abel]; Herm. Wr. 11, 15; Stob. I 293, 21=454, 1ff Sc.; Hierocles 1 p. 418: the rest of the gods are εἰκόνες of the primeval god.--The Logos: Philo, Conf. Ling. 97; 147. Wisdom: Wsd 7:26) 2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15 (EPreuschen, ZNW 18, ’18, 243).—εἰ. τοῦ χοϊκοῦ, τοῦ ἐπουρανίου image of the earthly, heavenly (man) 1 Cor 15:49. (S. SVMcCasland, The Image of God Acc. to Paul: JBL 69, ’50, 85-100). The image corresponds to its original (cf. ὁμοίωμα 2 and 3; Doxopatres [XI AD]: Rhet. Gr. II 160, 1 εἰ. καὶ ὁμοίωμα διαφέρει).

Note the enlarged/bolded above & the category that BAGD places Col. 1:15 under: "Fig...of a man". They then specifically place Col. 1:15 under the subcategory "of Christ"....a clear reference to the historical Messiah (as opposed to a "2nd of 3 divine individuals") both biblically & definitionally, which was my overriding point. Indeed, the Logos who "was God" became flesh & thus, was and presently is the visible image of the invisible God [See The Amplified Bible]...which was my point all along! The general force of the term denotes that which is tangible or corporeal in contrast to that which is intangible. That is, the physical or visible realm, as opposed to the invisible, is inherent w/in this term. Again, this all points us to the visible Messiah who walked this Earth as God enfleshed & was received up into glory. Vs. 16 then introduces a conjunction, which is a dependent causal clause "hotee," further expounding upon the premise of vs. 15, to which all of the 3rd person pronouns relate [See GGBB, pg.460 for the function of this particular form of conjunction (Hotee)]. Thus, my original point remains. 

If you notice, the BDAG correlates its second definition with Col. 1:15 which reads, “that which has the form of something else…living image” and not with its third usage of “a human figure.” Point-in-fact, the only Biblical uses of the third category of “a human figure” are Rom. 1:23, 8:29, 2 Cor. 3:18, Heb. 10:1 and Col. 3:10. Col. 1:15 is never used under the third definition. This is (I believe) simply a cheap debate trick which speaks volumes about the man, Roger Perkins, if he purposely misrepresented the BDAG, as it seems he did. 

In the first place I wasn't even referring to "BDAG"....I was referencing the lexicon I said I was referencing and not the lexicon Krause says I was referencing. Hence, Krause attacks off of a false premise & then takes it upon himself to question my character altogether...par for the course in the trinitarian world, as is well noted. Would it not be more proper to enquire of me personally before assuming the posture of attack? Concerning the misquote, I have provided the reasons above & demonstrated that my original point remains in-tact...all based upon the same grammar that Krause appeals to! 

Interestingly, in this same cross-ex., White charges me w/ claiming that the first portion of Col. 1:16 contains the preposition dia "in the dative." Problem is, I never made such a claim & the case for dia in the latter section of vs. 16 appears in the genitive...not the "dative" as White charges, and yet we're to "listen and learn" from the trinitarians?? As expected, Krause omits all of this from his audiences consideration. Apparently White just gets a free-pass all the while we Oneness folks are held to the line & charged w/ "dishonestLy" when a few simple misquotes occur {even when not "quoting" the source it's claimed we're quoting!?}. 

On many occasions throughout the debate, Perkins “ducked” Dr. White’s questions, not willing to state his own view on the subject matter. He instead turned to the Lexicon’s to create a false impression that the Greek grammar was supportive of his Modalism, all the while dishonestly using them (the Lexicon’s) to advance his heretical position.

Let's see, I spent almost 3 hrs. delineating my position in contrast to the trinitarian position, dealt w/ virtually every passage White raised, and referenced numerous grammatical points [other than BAGD]...yet, somehow this constitutes "ducking"?? Interestingly, White barely touched the masculine singular heis as applied to God [See Mk. 12:29], started talking about "chickens" when asked about the normative implications of the anthropomorphisms applied to God, & on more than one occasion referred to Australian movie lines in order to elicit laughs from the audience...and I'm the one "ducking"?? Moreover, apparently Mr. Krause wasn't listening closely enough since I explicitly stated that everyone of the lexicographers I quoted were trinitarians [save Thayer], but that it was their based upon their theological preferences and not the actual grammar of the these texts...which was the reason I quoted them in the first place as opposed to attempting to "create a false impression". Hence, another character attack based upon Krause's blatantly bias perceptions. At this point, one has to begin questioning Krause's own motivations & intents. 

It always amazes me how trinitarians label those who find their position explicitly stated on the very pages of Scripture, yet one searches in vain to do the same w/ the stated trinitarian position. That is, we can turn straight to the pages of the Bible & read: "God is one person [Gal. 3:20, Amplified]," "the Lord is the Spirit {2 Cor. 3:17}," "God was manifest in the flesh [I Tim. 3:16]," "He that has seen me has seen the Father...for the Father who dwells in me, he does the works [Jn. 14:9-10]," "For in him [Christ] dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and you are complete in him... [Col. 2:9-10]," "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself [2 Cor. 5:19]." Yet, the trinitarians world confesses, & astoundingly claims that one is lost if they deny, "3-separate-divine-co-equal-co-eternal-persons in the Godhead," which we can read in the following book of the Bible:_________? And we're the "heretics"?? Not one Jewish writer in over 1500 yrs. of covenant relationship expressed such an existence...though they knew God on the most personal [note the singular usage!] terms possible for mankind. "Heretical" indeed! 

Please notice usage 2 and 3 in the data below and pay special attention to the red font. After doing so, CLICK HERE and listen to the 2nd Cross Examination between Dr. White and Mr. Perkins (please know, it is painful to listen to). I pray that the Lord grants Mr. Perkins true faith and repentance and I pray that Mr. Perkins represents the Lexicon’s in an honest fashion in future debates.

Krause's reference below is not even from the lexicon I referenced [I have bolded & enlarged his reference at the bottom of his quote], but the one he THOUGHT I was referencing...which I have cleared up above. I can only hope Mr. Krause will represent me "in an honest fashion" in the future, or, at least give me the opportunity to clear up any misunderstandings before taking it upon himself to write on-line ad hom articles attacking my character {which is quite telling about Mr. Krause himself now isn't it?}.

And while you are listening to this particular cross exam, notice how Mr. White erroneously charges me w/ claiming that dia appears in "the dative" in Col. 1:16. In the beginning of this cross-ex. I thought White was still leading into another question [as is his habit], as well as trying to ascertain where he was going, which is why I do not immediately respond. When I realized that WAS his question, I asked him to restate it. After you listen to this, you can click HERE, at the 16:42 section to hear White unashamedly claim he worships a God who exists as "3-divine-individuals, each with their own separate center of consciousness." Tell us Mr. Krause, do you worship this same God as stated by White here?

Regarding "true faith," I sincerely hope & pray you repent of your unbiblical "reform" doctrines [trinity, baptism for babies, unconditional eternal security, etc. ad nauseum] prior to your departure from this life...and will be here to help you in whatever way you need. Exchange your seminary ideas for the NT biblical plan of salvation as demonstrated in Acts 2:38 [the way the first sinners entered into the NT church], receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit just as they did in the Bible by speaking in other tongues, walk in the beauty of holiness & you will be in the same NT church seen in Scripture. Until then, I am sincerely praying for a great revival among trinitarians. May God speed!


Is it a logical contradiction to say "Jesus is God"?

It is the firm conviction of this writer that in Jesus Christ we meet the Living, True God who has become flesh. In this post I will attempt to explain what I mean when I say "Jesus is God." Oxford scholar and former atheist Alister McGrath noted that, "Through Jesus Christ, whom we recognize to be God incarnate, a direct and personal encounter between ourselves and God is made possible."(1)

The Old Testament prepares us for one of the greatest breakthroughs in human history. It is as though we were looking at a beautiful painting only through a peep hole. Once we are in full focus of the painting we know and experience more than what our previous reality could see. Previously we only saw a glimpse. Isaiah 53 speaks of the suffering servant. Psalm 22 reads about a righteous sufferer and in Malachi 3:1 it is “the Lord” God who will suddenly come to His temple. Indeed, in the tabernacle of the wilderness it was God Himself who tabernacles with Israel. Luke 1:68 records:

NET | "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, because he has come to help and has redeemed his people.

Here it is God, the Lord or Yahweh of Israel, that has come to help and redeem. We read “blessed be the Lord” because He has raised up a “horn of salvation” in the house of David. Moses led the children of Israel out of Egypt by His mighty act. Jesus brings deliverance and redemption to mankind yet Jesus is not simply an agent of God as was Moses. In this instance as in others God serves as His own messenger. He is God in the flesh, God Incarnate. In the tabernacle in the wilderness it was God Himself that dwelled therein and not merely an agent. When you see Jesus you see God (John 1:1, 14, 18; John 20:28; John 14:9-10).

For the Unitarian or Socinian this can be acceptable only if we mean Jesus is God in merely a representative fashion. As we have seen, what is said about Jesus transcends what can be said of simply an agent or shaliach. Moses nor any of the apostles are ever worshipped. Trinitarians believe that Jesus is God but He is the second of three divine, eternal persons who can each be called God.* The term “God” in their thinking is much like a senate or council but with more complexity in which the three divine persons share in Godness or the divine nature. What is said about Jesus transcends Him merely being a divine being or an Incarnate angelic figure. This writer as well as Oneness Pentecostal theology rejects both views when asserting that Jesus is God.

The same God of the Old Testament who speaks as a He now comes as one of us. It is only by looking at Jesus that anyone has truly ever seen God. This does not mean that Jesus looked like God to those around Him; however, the external appearance of God is Jesus (John 1:18; Col. 1:15; 2 Cor. 4:4). While on earth Jesus was fully and completely man and fully and completely God without confusion. The Trinitarian will have little problem here as long as one actually means Jesus is God the Son. My Unitarian friends will stumble here and even suggest some sort of logical contradiction. For them Jesus could not be God. In reality, this is simply untrue. The Incarnation may better be considered a hopeful paradox but to say it is a contradiction of logic would be to militate against the nature of God. God is truth and all truth is God's truth.

There is nothing that does not allow God, who created all things, to enter into His own creation. There is nothing illogical about Him appearing in human form. When we speak of the Incarnation we are not saying human nature is divine nature. Or that God stopped being God in order to add human nature to His existence. For there to be a logical contradiction we would need to be saying one thing is another thing in the same instance and in the same respect. Peter Kreeft notes:
“it is not a simple self-contradiction to say that one person can have two natures, though it is a simple self-contradiction to say that that person is both one person and two persons, or one nature and two natures, at the same time. There is even something of an analogy in ourselves—we are both material and immaterial, spatial and nonspatial, visible and invisible—for we are both body and soul...the Incarnation, however miraculous, is not a self-contradiction. Therefore the Incarnation is possible.”(2)
Saying Jesus is God and man is not a logical contradiction. If we were saying that Jesus is a square circle then that would be a logical contradiction. Circles and squares are from the category of shapes. To say Jesus is one and the other in the same instance and at the same time would be a contradiction. That is also like saying red is blue or blue is red in the same instance and at the same time. Red and blue belong to the category of colors. To say Jesus is blue and yet red at the same time and in the same respect would be a contradiction. This is not the claim of Christians today who assert that Jesus is God and man.

Jesus is a man but is not the same as every other man who has existed. It is not contradictory for there to be a circle which is also blue to indeed be a circle. God and man may be different but that in no way means they are logically incompatible. Jesus as God and man cannot be a square and a circle but He can be a blue circle. As a blue circle Jesus is both shape (circle) and color (blue) without any contradiction. God and man are different but it does not follow that because they are different then they are also logically incompatible.

Jesus then not only reveals what it means to be divine but what it also means to be truly human. Are we confident that we fully understand what it is to be human? Often we are content that we know what it is like to be human. We are human after all. Is that all there is though? Could it be that through Jesus Christ we see what it is like to be truly human?

The fact that something seems paradoxical does not make it true or false either. Science and quantum theory point us to the inevitability of paradox and seeming contradiction. This however is usually because our knowledge is partial or superficial. We must always realize that our reality or worldview may be partial or incomplete. From the standpoint of the scientific observer an electrons velocity can hardly be determined. This is true though from the standpoint of the finite observer. This does not mean that the electron is actually randomly moving or confused.

Jesus being uniquely God and man is not a logical contradiction. While on earth Jesus chose to be humbled and die as a man and a slave to mankind (2 Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2:5-11). If it is impossible for Jesus to be God then one must first presuppose that God cannot enter into His own creation. As we have seen in the Angel of the LORD texts the God of the Bible does and certainly can appear in theophanic forms as well as unique divine appearances as the messenger Himself. In Christ the invisible has become visible.


1) McGrath, Alister E. (1997) Studies in Doctrine (186) Zondervan Publishing House; Grand Rapids Michigan.

2) Kreeft, Peter, Tacelli, Ronald K. (1994) Handbook of Christian Apologetics © 1994 by Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli. All rights reserved.

* Trinitarians will assert that Oneness Pentecostals contradict the persons of the Trinity but one must presuppose the Trinity first. This article is not intended to address this argument.

Adversus Trinitas

"...unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins." (John 8:24 ESV)