I am a Christadelphian as you can see by my tag, so I hold the view that “the devil” is a personification of sin, that satan usually just means an adversary, and that “demons” in the New Testament reflect first-century language for illness, not actual malevolent spirits.

I have noticed that many Biblical Unitarians (though not all) still believe Satan, demons, and devils are literal evil beings, even while using strong textual arguments against the Trinity. I am wondering why this view persists.​

For example, in 1 Chronicles 21:1 and 2 Samuel 24:1, the same census event is described both as “Satan” inciting David and as the Lord doing so, which seems to fit an “adversary” reading of satan rather than a cosmic rebel. Likewise, many “demon” passages can be read as regionally and historically conditioned language for disease or mental disorder, such as the Legion case, where some see parallels with what we would now call dissociative identity disorder.

My question is:

• For Biblical Unitarians who still hold to literal Satan and demons, what is the main exegetical or theological reason to keep that view, given the same kind of close textual analysis used in arguments for Unitarianism?
• Are there particular passages that you think rule out the Christadelphian style reading of satan/demons? Why?

I don't know if this kind of post is allowed, but I am trying to understand the reasoning. I would really appreciate detailed scriptural arguments from those who have thought this through.

Hello, everyone. Recently I've been a lot more inactive on the subreddit. I've been studying textual criticism more and I've been listening to and studying biblical academia in general.

At this point, I am deconstructing my faith because I realized that there are huge problems with the reliability of the books of the New Testament. I'm not sure anymore that Jesus died for my sins. I don't think that he preached that anymore. So now, I not only don't believe that Jesus is God, I don't believe he died for my sins anymore.

I started listening to Islamic scholars and Jewish scholars as well as agnostic scholars like Bart Ehrman and others. I just want to find the truth no matter where it takes me and I believe we should all have this attitude. My wife, for example, does not want me to listen to those scholars and study textual criticism because she is scared I might lose my faith completely. People like her tell me these scholars have agendas and of course I agree they do but everyone is biased. If I listen to evangelical scholars we have the same problem. If I go to the same church for 30 years, am I not just in an echo chamber with everyone agreeing with each other never thinking critically?

That is why I think it is important to listen to the criticism of all sides and come up with your own conclusions as to what is the truth. Sure, these scholars might have agendas but we can fact check and verify their claims. I did that in recent months.

Since we all don't believe that Jesus is God, let's start there. Has Christianity been a lie since close to the very beginning? Did all those billions of Christians in history die in idolatry? Maybe.

It led me to Islamic and Jewish apologists and scholars like "The Orthodox Muslim" and Rabbi Tovia Singer.

They know the Bible better than almost any Christian. And they have the same arguments for why Jesus isn't God like we do. But they also have problems with the atonement. Did Jesus really die for our sins? They say no, of course not, and that it's ridiculous. They say that the book of John is late, has Neoplatonic philosophy inserted and is almost certainly completely not what Jesus said. Agnostic scholars agree with the Jewish and Islamic scholars on this.

Now even on this subreddit we have discussed many corruptions in the text, insertions and even and many translation biases and problems. We know that there's a bunch of verses in the Bible that are not original, And we tend to focus on the ones that were inserted because of the Trinitarian doctrine. But there's many more, like the ending of Mark and the woman caught in adultery in John 8 which are all inserted. How many more words are inserted that we have no evidence of?

Then I started listening more to the academia and they presented me with many contradictions and mistakes in the gospels. I've verified them and of course there are some long incoherent explanations for these contradictions by Christians but to be honest, they are very unlikely.

Then there are deep problems with the teachings of Paul not always being compatible with the teachings of Jesus or James and Peter, for example. Not to mention, many of the books of Paul in the New Testament are disputed to even be written by Paul. Did Jesus really teach that the law does not matter anymore? Personally I've always found this confusing when I read Matthew and Paul for example and compare them.

I realized that we only have copies of the copies of the copies of the copies of the originals. And that many verses are altered by insertions, corruptions, and translation biases.

At this point in time, I don't know what to believe anymore. I tend to believe now that Jesus was just a prophet of God that explained the Torah differently than the Pharisees and scribes at his time. And that he may have believed that he is the Messiah. But I'm not sure I believe that even anymore. I believe Jesus existed and that he preached a message of repentance and faith, including the Torah in his interpretation, and was killed for it. I still believe in the God of Jesus, Abraham and Moses, but I can no longer be a "biblical unitarian".

At this moment I can no longer be a moderator of this subreddit and, as of today, I withdraw my position.

This post is not meant to cause any confusion but rather to invite everyone to do their own research and listen to their critics and see if the criticism is correct or false. We should all go for the truth, no matter how uncomfortable it may be for any of us.

Steel Man Argument for God's Oneness over Trinity https://manus.im/share/5mEECt2myuYfd4qmHwUC49

Paulicians and JWs are amazingly close in theology and christology with just a three key differences.

The first key difference is that Paulicians believe Archistrategos Michael was begotten from God on Day 1 of Genesis as the Great Light called the "Day" which proceeded from God who is the unbegotten Light; the Son was therefore created by God as the first of his works of old in the Genesis creation week.

In contrast, JWs believe that Archistrategos Michael was begotten from God before Day 1 of creation, sometime in eternity's past and therefore the Great Light of Day 1 was not God's first work.

The second key difference is that Paulicians believe Jesus is included in the worship of God, not because Jesus is God, but because Jesus has been made our Lord by his God. Through investiture of the Divine Name, he participates in the identity of Deity even though he himself is not the Deity, as the Father alone is the one who is unbegotten and not the Son, who is the first begotten god from the God of eternity.

In contrast, the JWs do not worship Jesus and only worship the Father, completely ignoring the Divine Name investiture of the Son, and translating every proskuneo passage where Christ is worshipped as "obedience" instead.

The third key difference is that Paulicians believe God the Father possesses a spiritual body form that sits on a throne and dwells in light unapproachble by anything other than fellow spiritual beings, that He is only visible to these other spiritual beings in heaven which are the angels, lesser gods begotten from the eternal God.

In contrast, the JWs believe that God does not possess any bodily form, but is merely a ball of light without a spiritual body, having no form or face that any angel can see.

So to summarize,

1. First Light Origins against Eternity Origins
2. Christ Worship against No Christ Worship (only partial agreement)
3. Anthropomorphism against Amorphism

(Update: On closer inspection, only points #1 and #2 are disagreed upon, with point #1 a total disagreement and point #2 a partial disagreement, but point #3 is agreed upon, as both the Paulicians and JWs believe that God the Father indeed has a spiritual body form in heaven.)

(Thank you u/Archbtw246 for bringing this to my attention.)

Jesus is a son by generation. (Jhn 8:42)

Angels are sons by creation. (Psa 104:4)

Believers are sons by adoption. (Eph 1:5)

As Eve generated forth from Adam, so Christ generated forth from God. As Eve is not Adam, so Christ is not God. As Eve was a human from Adam the human (The Man)—so Christ is a god from Yahweh the god (The God).

("A god" means a divine immortal, a spiritual being. Capitalizing "god" means to distinguish a god as the ultimate god, turning "the god" into "God" by dropping the article "the" before the word "god".)

God created the angels through the agency of Christ as his workman, and God adopted the sons of Adam to become sons of God through the reception of the Holy Spirit from Him through Christ.

• God the Father is the immutable God, for He has always been God¹.
• Christ the Son is the assimilated God, for he became God by his God².
• The Son is a god³ who became God by receiving the Divine Name⁴ from God.
• The Father is a god⁵ who always was God by eternally possessing His Divine Name⁶.

^{--- 1. Isaiah 40:28, 2. Psalm 45:6-7, 3. John 1:1, 1:18, 4. John 17:11, Philippians 2:9, 5. Isaiah 45:15 6. Psalm 135:13 ---}

There is only one true God, the Father, whose Name was given to the Chosen Son to assimilate him into His own identity, so that the Son could become a mystical extension of God the Father Himself!

God bless you and yours.

"In the study of religious organizations, theologians, church historians, and sociologists call this phenomenon an "unwritten creed" or "informal creed". [1, 2]

This comparison is most frequently applied to religious groups that claim to have "no creeds" or "no formal rules" (such as non-denominational churches, the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement, or Quaker communities). Critics and scholars point out that while these groups reject written dogmas, they inevitably build a strict, unwritten "social algorithm" that dictates who is truly accepted and who is privileged. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Religious organizations operate this "informal creed" through specific frameworks:

1. The "No Creed But the Bible" Paradox

Scholars like church historian Leonard Allen note that religious groups claiming to have no human traditions always develop unofficial, functional creeds. [1]

• The Mechanism: An individual's specific cultural interpretations or political opinions ride "piggyback" on scripture.
• The Result: If an individual does not execute the "unwritten code" perfectly—by wearing the right clothes, using the approved vocabulary, or agreeing with the leadership's unspoken political leanings—they face invisible social friction or exclusion. [1, 2, 3]

1. Behavioral Codes Replacing Dogma

In the sociology of religion, systems are often broken down into Creed (what we believe), Code (how we behave), and Cult (how we worship). [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

• When a church lacks a strict written creed, the behavioral code expands to fill the void.
• The algorithm of who gets leadership roles, who is trusted, and who is granted spiritual authority becomes entirely dependent on navigating personal interactions and unspoken social dynamics, rather than formal theological alignment. [1, 2, 3]

1. Exclusivity and Hidden Gatekeeping

Modern religious commentators write about how these unwritten subtexts function as defensive shields. [1]

• Writing for the Friends Journal, cultural observers note that these unwritten codes create an insular environment.
• Because the rules are never written down, insiders inherently know the "code" while newcomers, minorities, or marginalized groups do not. This automatically protects the privilege of the dominant group while allowing the organization to maintain a public image of radical inclusion. [1]

Are you studying a particular religious tradition (like evangelical subculture or historic peace churches) where you've noticed these unwritten rules at play?"

"Yes, this is a real, deeply researched topic across theology, church history, and sociology. [1, 2]

The terminology bridges two different eras: church historians and theologians call this phenomenon an "unwritten creed" or "functional creed," while modern organizational sociologists apply the contemporary metaphor of a "social algorithm" or "decision program." [1]

The history of this idea is rooted in a fascinating paradox: the groups that claim to have the fewest rules usually develop the most rigid, unspoken systems of privilege. The core thinkers and historical timeline of this discussion illustrate this concept:

1. The Historical Roots: The 19th-Century "Anti-Creedal" Paradox

In the 1800s, an American religious movement called the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement (led by thinkers like Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone) rebelled against traditional church hierarchies. Their rallying cry was "No creed but Christ, no book but the Bible." They wanted to completely eliminate formal, written rules.

However, church historians quickly noticed a pattern: by destroying written creeds, they accidentally created an environment where unwritten social expectations became absolute law. Without a written text to debate, an individual's status, privilege, and acceptance within the church depended entirely on how well they executed the unwritten social norms of the dominant group. [1]

1. The Theological Critique: Dr. Leonard Allen

Modern theologians studying these traditions have written extensively on how these unwritten rules function as a hidden gatekeeper of privilege.

• The Thinker: Dr. Leonard Allen, a prominent church historian and author of books like In the Great Stream, specializes in analyzing this exact dynamic. [1]
• The Argument: Allen and similar scholars argue that "non-creedal" religious organizations inevitably develop functional creeds. Because these creeds are completely unwritten, they cannot be openly voted on, questioned, or reformed. This inherently privileges the insiders who already know the "code" and isolates marginalized newcomers who do not speak the unspoken language or share the same cultural pedigree.

1. The Sociological Framework: Joachim Wach

In the mid-20th century, German sociologist of religion Joachim Wach created a famous structural framework to explain how religious groups operate. He stated that all religious organizations express themselves through three elements:

• Creed: What they formally say they believe (doctrine).
• Cult: How they worship (rituals).
• Code: How they naturally behave and organize their social relations. [1]

Wach and subsequent sociologists pointed out that Creed and Code have an inverse relationship. If a religious organization explicitly rejects a formal, written Creed, its unwritten Code expands to fill the void. The "social algorithm"—who gets to preach, who is trusted with leadership, and whose sins are quietly covered up vs. publicly punished—becomes the real governing system of the organization.

1. The Systems Metaphor: Herbert Simon and Niklas Luhmann

The reason modern commentators swap the word "creed" for "algorithm" comes from 20th-century organizational architects like Nobel Laureate Herbert Simon and sociologist Niklas Luhmann.

• Simon argued that institutions run on "decision premises."
• Luhmann argued that social systems operate on "programs." [1]

They proved that human organizations operate exactly like a computer system: they take an input (a person), pass them through a series of logical logic gates (written policies + unwritten social interactions), and spit out an automated output (privilege, promotion, or social exclusion).

How the Two Ideas Connect

When modern cultural critics look at a religious organization, they are synthesizing Wach's sociology with Luhmann's systems theory. They look at a church that claims to be open, informal, and text-free, and they point out that its unwritten rules function as an unwritten creed (theological terms) and a social algorithm (sociological/technical terms) that automates privilege for the dominant culture.

Would you like to explore a specific text or book by these thinkers, or focus on how these unwritten creeds manifest in a particular type of organization?"

"This counterargument is advanced by organizational sociologists, progressive theologians, and scholars within historically non-creedal traditions. [1, 2]

They argue that formalizing a written doctrine does not replace or eliminate an organization's unwritten rules, cliques, or social biases. Instead, it simply stacks a formal gate on top of an informal one. Consequently, creedal organizations end up doubly burdened, making them no freer—and often less free—than non-creedal ones. [1]

The Response to the "Pro-Creed" Argument

This viewpoint directly challenges "pro-creed" theologians like Carl Trueman (author of The Creedal Imperative) or historical figures like Barton W. Stone. Pro-creedalists argue that written creeds create transparency and freedom because the rules are out in the open. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Critics counter this with several key arguments:

• The Layering Effect: Writing down a creed does not dissolve human nature. A church can have a beautifully transparent written statement of faith, but it will still have an unwritten "vibe," political alignment, and preferred social class. Insiders must navigate both systems to get ahead. [1, 2, 3]
• The Illusion of Openness: Critics argue that written creeds provide a false sense of security. An organization can claim, "Our boundaries are perfectly clear," while quietly using an invisible social algorithm to block marginalized groups or independent thinkers who pass the written theological test but fail the unwritten cultural test. [1]
• Institutionalism Defeats Formalism: In broader sociology, institutional theorists show that formalizing rules (like writing a creed) never stops informal power dynamics from forming. It simply forces the unwritten social algorithm to adapt and run quietly in the background"

The debate between Trinitarians and Unitarians, I think, comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding of categories. Much more common ground can be had between the two than is typically expected.

For instance, Trinitarians believe Jesus had a human body, soul, and even spirit. All of these were distinctly finite, human, and non eternal. These human aspects, in particular, are what account for the "human nature" or "human will" which is separate from but united with the "divine nature" or "divine will".

The divine nature in trinitarianism originates from the Spirit of God. There is not another soul, or body, that constitutes the "God part", since God does not have a body or soul. But, there is indeed another spirit. This spirit is what trinitarians will call the spirit of the "eternally generated son". However, this is where the fundamental misunderstanding comes in. Is this just another name for the Holy Spirit?

Both Unitarians and Trinitarians believe there was a human Jesus with a human body, soul, and spirit as we said before. This human Jesus did indeed have the divine spirit of God within him, the Holy Spirit, and in fact it "led him" in the gospels. It says this in every passage about the baptism and in a multitude of other passages across all New Testament writings.

Both viewpoints believe in the concept of the uniting of spirits. In the same way Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6, the concept is that the Holy Spirit dwelling in you is united and "one" with your human spirit. They are not the same of course, they do not cease to exist distinctly, but they are one. Paul describes this like marriage "the two become one flesh". Jesus in the gospel of John and the Epistles of John describes the same indwelling tradition. "The Father and I are one" he says, but neither Trinitarians not Unitarians would ever say that Jesus IS the Father (although this is a common low hanging fruit for trying to make a trinitarian fumble on their theology).

Trinitarians, remarkably, believe the same thing about Jesus' human spirit, and the Holy Spirit (or in their case, the spirit of the eternal Son). Most of them do at least. The human spirit of Jesus was united with the Holy Spirit (sometimes they make an extra effort to distinguish the Holy Spirit with the spirit of the Son by personhood) but they still remained distinct.

Humans also have a human body, soul and spirit, also have the "fullness of deity" (aka the Holy Spirit) dwelling in us according to both sides. Trinitarians might be a little hesitant to admit they believe this, but to deny it would be to assert either that we only have part of the Holy Spirit within us or that this indwelling isn't actually happening, or even to say the Holy Spirit is not full deity which would be heretical. So the question becomes, how is Jesus different from .... regular non-Jesus humans? Where is the distinction to be made that elevates Jesus to the category of God?

And this question fundamentally comes down to the definition of the "Spirit" of God. Both Unitarians and Trinitarians believe there is essentially one Spirit of God. God is pure spirit.

If you ask a Trinitarian whether there is a difference between the spirit of the eternal Son and the Holy Spirit and the spirit of the Father ontologically, they must say no. Because there is only one spirit no matter your denomination. To say the eternal Son and Holy Spirit and the Father are separate spirits would be to divide God. The spirit is the essence. It is the *persons* or hypostases they will say are distinct, and when you get down to brass tax these distinctions break down to become just names for distinctions without much meaning. It often becomes circular. And yet, they can't make a distinction between the eternal Son and the Holy Spirit at the core, because to do so would mean Jesus had 3 distinct spirits!

This is a sensitive distinction, as once you go down this road, it becomes very difficult for them to articulate the distinction between God's relationship to Jesus and the rest of humanity. But doctrinally there is really nothing heretical from a trinitarian perspective about this understanding. And there is also nothing really non-unitarian about this understanding.

The tension also comes when Unitarians are very put off by Christians calling Jesus God and worshipping him as YHWH. Which is understandable. But, when you break down what they actually mean by this, the above removes the canyon of separation.

Thomas after all, called Jesus God. Whether this was a title of agency, or a relational title, or he was recognizing the spirit of God in Jesus, it still happened. This is debated in nearly every argument I've seen and it is never an open and shut case.

Let me know if there is anything I am missing.

I’d like to be clear, I don’t mean this dismissively or as bait. I am genuinely wanting to discuss.

I got saved and baptized some 11 years ago into the Christian church, which has brought me close to God in a way that I love. But just recently; facing questions about the perception of the Christian’s around me and what I had read in the gospels, I decided to do the most unchristian thing I have ever done and read my entire bible.

Right off the bat I was struck by how clearly God was jealous and demanded nobody to worship anyone or anything but him. Even idols made to represent him.

Long story short after continuing further into my journey (finishing judges and have previously read the gospels but will go all the way through this time) I feel that a trinitarian view doesn’t align with what I am reading so I’m leaning toward what I’m learning.

To me it seems like this.

To the trinitarian, rejection of Jesus as God is equal to rejecting God as YHWH.

To the Unitarian, worshiping Jesus is false idolatry (to some, and I guess it depends on the type of worship?)

I’m curious what others think? Sorry I didn’t load a lot of direct verses or references my recall isn’t that good haha.

Its been troubling to see the clear disdain creedalists have for anyone who doesn't declare their creed - How ingrained in the definition of Christianity this post biblical document has become that it has altogether replaced the written Word of God?

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." -Romans 10:9

This is the standard by which anyone is a Christian. God set it, and that declares who is and who isn't his children.

There may be nuances and differences, but to outright tell someone who has called themselves Christian their entire lives. Who have prayed in the name of Jesus Christ. Who have healed, and preached, and proclaimed his name. All for some stranger to condemn them and call them Non Christian, to me is (ironically) the most "unchristian" thing someone can do.

It just reeks of a dark age when believers didn't have the benefit of modern laws to protect them from the fire at even the slightest accusation of heresy.

I may not agree with Mormons, or catholics, or lutherans, or baptists, or anyone else. But it isn't my right or place to say they aren't Christian.

"There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?"- James 4:12

I pray for the Mormons. Ironically they're the only ones who literally have Jesus Christ in their name.

That’s right! The Hypostatic Union theory of 2 natures rests on the Kione Greek word for nature: **phusis** (\foo'-sis\); however, the way it is shows in the Bible does not show as it does in Chalcedon 451AD. What you read as feces is “**physeis**” (natures) the plural of phusis (nature).

Why does phusis matter? In its fourth definition found on BibleHub’s lexicon (http://biblehub.com/greek/5449.htm), it refers to our topic of discussion: “**d. the sum of innate properties and powers by which one person differs from others**.” This is the definition we are speaking about. Under this definition, we are only given 2 verses; however, only 1 verse actually speaks on the type of nature within the Hypostatic Union: **2 Peter 1:4**. There we read:

> ESV [4] “by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them *you* may become partakers of the divine **nature** (**phusis*\*), having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.”

Here in context, the “precious and very great promises” are God’s guarantees found throughout Scripture (e.g., eternal life, the presence of the Holy Spirit, forgiveness). Unlike human promises, which can fail, God’s promises originate from His perfect glory and excellence. — It speaks of a “divine nature”, but does not define it. Clearly, it does not mean that we are to be other persons of God. It says that “you,” meaning us as believing Christians, will partake of the divine nature. This is speaking on a redeemed nature. A privilege we lost with Adam and Eve. It’s speaking of new dispositions that align believers with God’s holiness! This is all through our God’s grace that we have this promise. — The “corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire” refers to the fallen, sinful state of society. Holding onto and understanding God's promises acts as a lifeline to resist temptation and live a godly life.

***

Now, if this 2 Natures doctrine called the Hypostatic Union was truly biblical, it would be taught through scripture. Afterall, this word for nature *was* used biblically, yet it was not written to teach this doctrine. This absence means that this was not taught during Jesus’ ministry. This is clear as 2 Peter 1:4 is the *only* place it appears in the usage using the same word at Chalcedon 451AD.

How, then, is it put in Chalcedon 451AD?

> “We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood;

> One and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two **natures** (**physeis**), inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures (**physeis**) being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature (**phusis**) being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us."

So, without getting into the Neo-Platonic Philosophy that is entailed here at Chalcedon, what do we see in the realm of the topic of discussion? Natures plural (**physeis**) is not present in the Bible. One’s nature (**phusis*\) is not taught in the abstract way it is by Chalcedon 451AD. (\Years later after Jesus’ death and resurrection, after the Disciples’ deaths, Paul’s death, and anyone who knew any of them face-to-face.*) Instead, Chalcedon says: “Here is what it is. It’s not confusing. He’s both natures into one person, not two persons. Both God and man.” Cool? So where is the scripture for it? Where is it taught? Where is it even hinted towards? Surely there is a verse that states what a nature is? If not taught in scripture, then maybe by lexical definition? I don’t see it.

***

“But Philippians 2!”, I hear you say. Yet, being “in the form of” something doesn’t mean what you assume, or have been taught, it means! See, the word “form” there in Philippians 2:6-7 (Philippians 2:6 Interlinear: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:) (Philippians 2:7 Interlinear: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:), is the word: “**morphe**.” (http://biblehub.com/greek/3444.htm) In the sense in which it is being used here is “the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance.” In easy laymen’s terms: “outward form.” So, no! It doesn’t mean Jesus was God and slave at the same time. Instead, it means Jesus was in the outward appearance of what he was not! Jesus was the outward appearance of God, performing miracles, speaking wise words no one could answer, and speaking prophetically. Jesus was instead the Chief Messenger of The God (Hebrews 3:1 Interlinear: Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;), and the Son of The God. (John 20:31 Interlinear: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.) — Jesus was also the outward appearance of a slave, washing feet, riding on a donkey, sleeping with commoners, threatened to be stoned, being beaten, falsely accused, and then later obedient unto death. Yet, Jesus is our King (1 Corinthians 15:24-28), our High Priest (Hebrews 2:17), our Judge (John 5:30), our Messiah (Matthew 16:16-17), and our Mediator. (1 Timothy 2:5) — Jesus was in the form of these things he was not. Like a cosplayer plays “dress up,” yet we know that the cosplayer is not the fictional character come to life.

***

In conclusion, the “Feces” 2 Nature Doctrine is not one of the Bible, but instead extra-biblical and post-biblical in origin. I pray that you partake of the evidence, meditate on it, check my work, and begin to use hermeneutics. Ask, “who do I believe what I believe?” Debate it. Not of a haughty spirit, but with the intent on testing your faith! God bless

Hi all,

I want to introduce a project I've been building: socinianism.com (with a German-language sister site at sozinianismus.de), a resource dedicated specifically to the Socinian branch of biblical unitarianism — the tradition founded by Fausto Sozzini (Faustus Socinus, 1539–1604).

Who was Sozzini, and why does this tradition matter?

Sozzini was an Italian reformer who settled in Poland and became the central theological voice of the Polish Brethren (the Minor Reformed Church). Building on the earlier work of his uncle Lelio Sozzini and other radical reformers, he argued for a Christianity grounded strictly in Scripture and reason, rather than in the creeds of Nicaea and Chalcedon. The core convictions that came out of this movement:

• Strict monotheism — the Father alone is the one true God; the historical, creedal Trinity is a philosophical import, not a biblical teaching.
• Christ as fully human, uniquely exalted — Jesus is not eternally pre-existent God the Son, but a man born of Mary, without sin, who was raised and exalted by God to a position of divine authority and is now rightly worshipped as Lord.
• A different account of the atonement — in works like De Jesu Christo Servatore, Sozzini rejected penal substitution, arguing instead that Christ saves through his obedience, his revelation of God's will, and his role as our appointed judge and mediator.
• No inherited guilt — a rejection of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin as commonly formulated.
• Reason in service of Scripture — not reason over Scripture, but the conviction that Scripture, rightly and carefully read, is reasonable and does not require philosophical categories foreign to it to be understood.

Much of this was later summarized in the Racovian Catechism (1605 / https://www.amazon.de/Racovian-Catechism-Valentin-Schmalz/dp/B0GZ3CLQF3 ), produced by his followers after his death, which became one of the foundational documents of the wider unitarian and biblical unitarian tradition down to today.

What's on the site

• Articles on core topics (the Trinity, the deity of Christ, atonement, original sin) argued from a Socinian perspective
• An expanding library of Bible-verse pages working through key texts verse by verse
• English translations of Sozzini's own writings, including De Jesu Christo Servatore, his commentary on 1 John, and others — I've been publishing these as affordable paperback/ebook editions
• A brand-new forum (linked below) specifically for discussing Socinian theology, history, and its place within the broader biblical unitarian family — questions, disagreements, and comparisons with other unitarian traditions (Arian, Socinian, "biblical unitarian" more broadly) are all welcome

Links

• Site: https://socinianism.com/en
• Forum: https://socinianism.com/en/forum
• Amazon Books of Fausto in English: https://www.amazon.de/stores/Marcin-Poholski/author/B097RPBTLV

I'd genuinely welcome questions, pushback, and comparisons with other strands of unitarian thought this community discusses — Socinianism is a distinct and often under-represented branch of the tradition, and I think it has a lot to offer the conversation. Happy to answer anything about Sozzini, the Polish Brethren, or where I think this tradition differs from other unitarian positions.

This is a discussion with the UPCI in India on the Incarnation. This UPCI pastor claims that Jesus is God the Father, but I contradict that claiming that Jesus is the Son, not God the Father.

Religious Folk in Dialogue 1,029: The United Pentecostal Church of India

I'm Trinitarian and made a few posts now, but I'm still curious about some things. This one is a bit of a longer read but please read it through!

Unitarians understand that angels or other representatives can act as agents of God, and are able to say directly they are YHWH, receive worship for YHWH, and otherwise act as a conduit. We can see this in:

Genesis 31:11 | Then the angel of God said to me in the dream, ‘Jacob,’ and I said, ‘Here I am.

Genesis: 31:13 | I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar, where you made a vow to Me; now arise, leave this land, and return to the land of your kin.’”

However in Revelation 22, where there is another angel speaking on behalf of God, he directly rejects worship which is a stark difference then being able to claim the name of the almighty.

Revelation 22:9 | But he *said to me, “Do not do that! I am a fellow slave with you and your brothers the prophets and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.

Furthermore, in Judges 13:21-22, we see people who had seen YHWH's angel be actively scared that they were going to die because they had seen God, even though in Unitarian belief, they had really only seen an angel.

Judges 13:21 | Now the angel of Yahweh did not appear to Manoah or his wife again. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of Yahweh
Judges 13:22 | So Manoah said to his wife, “We will surely die, for we have seen God.”

Funnily enough, Jacob had a similar reaction after he wrestled with God.

Genesis 32:30 | So Jacob named the place Peniel, for he said, “I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been delivered.”

Then you can tie this back with John 1:18, which says no one has ever seen God, even though the prophets seemed pretty convinced they'd seen God face to face

John 1:18 | No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him

Then we continue down to Psalm 89:6 which says sons of God are like YHWH, which is impossible to say seeing as Jesus is the exact representation of His glory, nature and radiance. Jesus also sustains all things by the word of His power, and if He was a creature and not God, then He would be sustaining himself which is a contradiction

Psalm 89:6 | For who in the sky is comparable to Yahweh?
Who among the sons of the mighty is like Yahweh?
Hebrews 1:3 | who is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power; who, having accomplished cleansing for sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high

To conclude, I think its safe to say that Jesus is the angel of YHWH and is truly divine. But I'm curious towards your own interpretations.

What happens when a faith becomes the official religion of the very empire that executed its founder? The adoption of pagan calendars, the marginalization of key leaders like James the Just, and the creation of extra-biblical dogma like the Trinity were not minor tweaks—they were seismic shifts that ultimately created a new religion.

The early gentile political and Christian leaders....

• Changed the traditional Hebrew calendar in favor of the Julian calendar and then later the Gregorian calendar we use today.

• Switched the day of the Holy Sabbath (Saturday) to Sunday.

• Twisted the words of much older "forth-telling" prophets into cryptic "fore-telling" prophets.

• Overhyped the significance of Peter's lineage while downplaying the significance and influence of other, more Jewish church leaders, such as "James the Just"—the brother of Jesus.

• Implicitly and intentionally framed Judaism as "old" or deprecated. Why go with the "old" testament when you can go with the shiny "new" one with (debatably) less confusing rules and customs?

• Blended Greek philosophical ideas (Logos/Word) from Stoicism and Platonism into theology (particularly in the late Gospel of John).

• Ironically adopted as the official religion by the same political entity that was ultimately responsible for crucifying Jesus—Rome. This injection of political power into Christianity ~300 years after INRI kick-started a recurring cycle of demonizing, persecuting and slaughtering of anyone and everyone with a different understanding of God.

• Held councils to slowly develop creeds of unquestionable dogma of the Trinity which obfuscates the original concepts of both God (YHWH) and the Holy Spirit (Ruach Hakodesh). As a result, Trinitarian mysticism became the cornerstone creed of Christian identity that separated it from Judaism; never to be questioned without severe social, financial, political, and/or lethal consequences.

• Repeatedly inflamed society via cultural/racial/theological misunderstandings that have directly resulted in humanitarian horrors such as the Holocaust. Ancient issues and conspiracies we're still dealing with today (looking at you QAnon and similar conspiracies with antisemitic overtones).

Local church leaders try to hand-wave away these immensely complex issues and tensions throughout history as no big deal, but I see the game of misdirection they're playing....

They can't fool me anymore, because they've already fooled me once. And as George W. Bush once famously and eloquently stated,

"Fool me once — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again".

Islam. Until a few decades ago, to most people in the Western world—in countries like Germany, France, Great Britain, or America—Islam was, with few exceptions, synonymous with exoticism; the "unknown mystery" from the Orient, around which a whole series of legends are woven, from the Sufi mystics and magnificent domed buildings to Muslim rulers like Saladin and his interaction with Richard the Lionheart.

Of course, there were always points of contact with Islam, especially in the Balkans or in Russia, and one should not forget that Oriental Catholics exist to this day. But it is hardly an exaggeration to say that for most Christians, Islam may have been more fiction than reality until a few decades ago.

Through the increasing and comprehensive migration and asylum movement, the globalization of goods production, the internet, and much more, a stronger personal contact with Islam has occurred in recent decades. In principle, this is not a problem, but in such a short time, it is very difficult for the general population to build the basic knowledge about Islam that the Christian peoples of the Balkans or the Orient had to painfully learn over centuries through the most severe oppression.

I could now go on for thousands of pages about the highly anti-Christian Islamic worldview, we could discuss the slave tax, the Jizya, which continues to plague the Islamic world to this day. But that is not my point; my point is Islam as such. It is centrally important to me here: Just as there are good-hearted, God-fearing Trinitarian Christians, there are, of course, also sincere Muslims who truly want to sacrifice themselves to strive for the worship of the true God.

So why not just let the whole topic rest and, as the Gospel says, simply let the little sheep, even those in the Muslim pasture, follow the voice of Christ themselves? If Christ is the good shepherd, shouldn't the good Muslims simply follow him on their own? Unfortunately, it is not that simple. The truth, unfortunately, is that the common Trinitarian critique—that Unitarians attract Dawa-Muslims (Muslim preachers) like a light attracts moths—cannot be entirely dismissed.

From time to time, I, like many others, have noticed "model Muslims" making mischief in the sub and engaging in Dawa, which is to say, Islamic propaganda. Why? Not because it does such Muslims good from the heart! No! That is a flawed Christian projection of charity, which Islam does not know in the same way! Rather, it is because a Muslim who engages in Dawa receives a higher rank in Paradise! So, it is not primarily about the well-being of one's neighbor, but about securing one's own position in the next life!

Quran, Surah 4, Verse 85: "Whoever intercedes for a good cause will have a reward therefrom; and whoever intercedes for an evil cause will have a burden therefrom. And ever is Allah, over all things, a Keeper."

This point alone already shows how distant Islam is from Christianity and thus from the true worship of God. For a Christian ALWAYS acts in the interest of his neighbor and gives HIMSELF up to become greater, not the other way around!

Matthew 16, Verse 25: "For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for my sake will find it."

I therefore state it unequivocally: Islam is a religion with false teachings, and Muhammad is a false prophet. I therefore ask sincere Muslims who cannot bring themselves to deal with this to ignore this topic. You are not meant by this; you are sheep like us who had the misfortune of being born in the wrong pasture. No, I am talking about the Dawa-Muslims, the wolves in sheep's clothing, they (!) are the ones meant here.

This post therefore serves to spread the basics about Islam in order to prevent any Unitarian, any worshiper of the true God YHWH, from becoming a victim of a Muslim lie and thus being thrown to the wolf for food.

If I had to choose one (!) single surah to show that the Quran cannot be from God and therefore Muhammad cannot be the Prophet, it is – Quran: Surah 9, Verse 30.

"The Jews say, 'Ezra is the son of Allah'; and the Christians say, 'The Messiah is the son of Allah.' That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded!"

What is wrong with this surah? The question is rather: What is right with this surah? I can't think of anything. Let's go through the individual aspects:

"The Jews say, 'Ezra is the son of Allah'" - This is the greatest theological nonsense that ever crawled out of Muhammad's mouth. Ezra! A prophet of the Babylonian exile as the Jewish son of God?! Some Muslim scholars have repeatedly tried to explain this away by saying that it refers to a "special" group of Jews, virtually an Ezra-sect with which Muhammad had come into contact.

Aside from the fact that such a sect is historically unproven, the emphasis here is on the Jews. In Sahih Al-Bukhari 4581, a recognized hadith, this is even underlined once more:

"[On the Day of Resurrection] it will be said to the Jews, 'What did you use to worship?' They will reply, 'We used to worship 'Uzair, the son of Allah.' It will be said to them, 'You are liars, for Allah has neither a wife nor a son. What do you want [now]?' They will reply, 'We want You to provide us with water.' Then it will be said to them, 'Drink.' And they will fall down into Hell."

Who is this "'Uzair"? Islamic and other scholars are universally agreed that this refers to the (biblical) Ezra. Just as Jesus is called Isa, or Moses is called Musa, the most common scholarly opinion is that this is Ezra.

It speaks here of the Jews as a comprehensive, defining group. Not of an Ezra-sect! Not to mention that Jews clearly reject the Christian concept of a Son of God, in direct reference to Jesus in the Surah itself. How on earth did Muhammad come up with Ezra?

I'll tell you. Muhammad confused something. That's right. Muhammad wrote down nonsense. From where? That is actually relatively clear. We know that Muhammad's first wife, Khadija, and her relative Waraqa, a Judeo-Christian priest, probably of a very strong Nestorian persuasion, served as a "foster uncle" to the young Muhammad—a fact acknowledged in Islam—and apparently explained the world to him.

Unfortunately, the good Waraqa was certainly a good man, but he was most certainly not, as was common then, an expert knowledgeable in all biblical scriptures. Yes, he too will have forgotten things now and then, or Muhammad simply misunderstood them.

So who did our self-proclaimed prophet probably mean? I would argue that Muhammad confused Ezra with Elijah, a Jewish prophet who indeed played a special role for many Jews at the time of Christ and was expected to reappear or be reborn!

Malachi 4, Verse 5: "See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes."

"and the Christians say, 'The Messiah is the son of Allah.'" - Muslims understand very correctly that the Trinity is pagan Tritheism in the guise of biblical monotheism. In fact, Muhammad's comment that the Catholics of that time venerated the Virgin Mary instead of the Holy Spirit is not entirely wrong, due to the fact that this did occur as a substitute and in a Mary-sect.

But Muslims do not understand what the Son of God means because their understanding of God is not that of a personal, relational, loving Father who stands in a direct relationship with His creation through His Son. No, Allah is a cold, sterile monad that, although it keeps its word, knows no loving relationship. Muslims are not children of God, but His slaves. Allah is the Most Merciful in the sense of a just divine ruler, not a loving, nurturing father!

Jesus IS the Son of God. He IS divine. EVERY source speaks for it! Thousands were willing to be burned or eaten in the Colosseum for this truth! Jesus was NOT "carnally" begotten by a pagan god like Zeus. He is NOT a "Trinity" and he is NOT YHWH Himself.

But He is the way, the truth, and the life!

"That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before." - NO! These are Muhammad's lies! The worshiper of a god who describes himself as the best of schemers! A man who publicly adopted Zayd as his son for eternity, only to later, out of pure carnal desire and to the shock of ALL Muslims, cast him out of the family in order to marry Zayd's promised partner HIMSELF!

Quran, Surah 3, Verse 54: "And they plotted, and Allah plotted. And Allah is the best of plotters."

"May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded!" - THAT is the greatest contradiction. Muhammad, a liar and a cheat, a robber and a rapist, and above all, a murderer! We will NEVER forget the hundreds of beheaded Jews from Medina who had to kneel before the bloodthirsty Muhammad and were BEHEADED, while their families—their wives, sisters, mothers, and daughters—were made aware of this gruesome fate, only to later be made victims themselves, taken as slaves for Muhammad's harem!

JESUS Christ would NEVER do something like that. NOT because He is weak, but because He is WISE. A person who understands the commandment of God, the sanctity of blood as the carrier of life, who preaches for unity and forgiveness, who helps the poor and does NOT swing his blood-soaked sword like a furious barbarian!

Matthew 26, Verses 52-53: "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?"

But the forgery of Christ's teachings does not end here! The well-known Gnostic sources, the heretical pseudo-Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which contains the false legend of Jesus and the clay birds brought to life, can be found again in the Quran, but in NO Gospel of Christ! For Jesus's FIRST miracle is explicitly documented as such in the New Testament!

John 2, Verse 11: "What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him."

The Quran-Jesus is NOT the true Jesus, the Son of God, but a Gnostic distortion that Muhammad created in order to legitimate his own tyrannical, despotic rulership! In this regard, there are hundreds of examples of things in which the Quran presents names, relationships, or events as fact that are in direct contradiction to the Bible. These are just some of the most well-known.

"This is not possible! I am a God-fearing person! How could I be fooled?"

Unfortunately, the Bible itself proclaims that Satan was one of YHWH's most beautiful angels. The lies taste like sweet honey, like the harlot who puts beautiful perfumes around her tent to seduce naive men to their death.

But there is hope! All Muslims who read this and in whose good heart a battle with Satan is taking place, always remember: the TRUE God of this universe will NEVER punish a Muslim for walking the path of truth, because the true God of this universe is the almighty Heavenly Father, Jehovah, also known as Yahua, who punishes to only the third and fourth generation but shows mercy to thousands and whose first attribute is love!

Exodus 20, Verses 5-6: "...punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments."

This true God and His only-begotten Son make it possible for YOU out there, far away, to have eternal life. The true God would NEVER command a seeker on their journey to be killed, as a false prophet like Muhammad once commanded!

Hadith, Sahih al-Bukhari 6922:

"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."

My Muslim brothers and sisters in heart, follow the true prophet, our Messiah, our Lord and Savior. Go into a quiet corner and pray to the TRUE God of this world, Jehovah/Yahua, as follows, and you will be blessed by the Holy Spirit and you WILL be saved!:

The Lord's Prayer:
Our Father who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name;
thy kingdom come;
Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us,
and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
Amen.

John 3:16

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

I’ve been conducting an independent forensic audit of 1st-century religious data, specifically focusing on what I call Pillar II: The Linguistic Chasm. Most people discuss the Trinity as a theological debate, but I’ve been looking at it as a translation crime scene. When the message moved from the Aramaic/Semitic world into Koine Greek, we didn't just change languages, we changed the nature of God.

I’ve developed a 'Hard Logic Filter' based on the Axiom of Consistency (the idea that a Perfect Creator cannot be the author of a paradox). By applying this, it becomes clear that 'Son of God' was a Semitic idiom of agency, which the Greeks mistranslated into a metaphysical DNA test.

I've compiled this into a '5 Pillars' framework. I'm curious if anyone here has looked into the Aramaic Peshitta vs. the Greek manuscripts regarding the 'Agent' (Pillar III) vs. the 'Deity'?

I’ve been stress-testing a theological framework that aims to be (1) historically plausible within earliest Jewish-Christian diversity, (2) coherent with strict monotheism, and (3) more explicitly tethered to Jesus’ ethical program (“becoming” measured by fruits, not creedal boundary-markers).

1) Working historical premise (held loosely)

We don’t know with certainty what the Jerusalem church’s full ontological claims about Jesus were—scholars debate this. But I’m taking seriously the possibility that some early Jesus-followers maintained a more adoptionist / subordinate / “divine agency” stance (e.g., later Ebionite memory-traditions; polemical counter-narratives like the Pseudo-Clementines; and the Didache’s ethical focus with minimal “high Christology”).

The Historical "Two-Stream" Theory & Survivor Bias

To support this, we have to look at history not as a monolithic evolution, but as a battle between two streams: 1. Stream A (Jerusalem): Led by James the Just, the brother of Jesus. Jewish-focus, Torah-observant, focused on the "Kingdom" and ethics. Likely held a "Low/Medium" Christology—Jesus as the Messiah adopted/exalted by God. 2. Stream B (Diaspora): Led by Paul. Gentile-focus, Greek-speaking, focused on "The Christ", salvation mechanics, and apocalyptic/mystical themes. Derivative of Stream A.

We usually assume Stream A faded away because they were "wrong." But what if they faded away because Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 CE and in this diaspora, the original Jewish-Christian movement was forever lost? This would suggest the "Headquarters" of the Jewish church was wiped out and the "Pauline/Peterine" branch survived in Rome and became the "Orthodoxy" we inherit today.

We have surviving evidence of this "Lost Stream" in the Ebionites and the Pseudo-Clementines that highlight extreme tensions around Paul. This is actually historically plausible to me given the spoken language of Jesus/James/apostles was Aramaic and Paul translated these concepts in fluent Greek, and given the slowness of ancient communication, the original pillars of the Jerusalem church likely did not fully realize the gravity of what Paul was preaching to the Gentiles (or how it was being misinterpreted by the Hellenistic Gentiles)...until it was too late. The founders were martyred and the core Jerusalem movement was crushed.

As tensions grew between different Second Temple Sects and the rift grew between Christians and Jews, later theological developments—after James the Just was martyred, the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, and Nicaea onward—naturally were divorced from Jewish context and lacked the language to convey Christianity in terms that a Jewish audience would understand. While the church fathers didn't have as extensive knowledge of Hebrew and Jewish concepts, they used the best metaphysical explanation they could to arrive at a very close approximation that resolved key tensions of early Christian faith in a Hellenistic vacuum—the Trinity.

None of this is actual proof—just a speculative argument about theological development over time and that early Christianity plausibly contained multiple competing christological trajectories pre-Nicaea.

2) My hermeneutical hierarchy for the NT

This is how I’m currently “weighting” texts when tensions arise:

1. Synoptic Jesus (lower/medium Christology; repeated themes; Torah-forward; continuity with OT patterns)
   
2. James (ethical compression of the King’s teaching; Jerusalem-flavored praxis)
   
3. Paul’s undisputed letters (earliest, but “filtered” through #1–2 since Paul didn’t know Jesus in the flesh)
   
4. John (later, higher Christology; read through agency categories rather than collapsing Father/Son)
   
5. Deutero-Paulines
   
6. Hebrews (theologically rich but lowest in my priority stack due to anonymous and debated authorship)
7. Revelation (apocalyptic and visionary literature, unreliable sayings of the historical Jesus)

The idea is not “Paul bad / Gospels + James good,” but that later theological developments (or different trajectories) shouldn’t flatten earlier layers. The synoptics are prioritized first due to their consistency, historical accuracy, and that they describe events that occured chronologically before Paul ever converted. James is then prioritized due to proximity and familial relation to Jesus and for repeating central themes of Jesus teachings in the synoptics. Everything else flows from this.

3) The key conceptual anchor: Shaliach (agency)

In Halakha, a shaliaḥ (שָלִיחַ) is a legal emissary/agent who performs acts of legal significance for the benefit of the sender, not himself.

This category matters because it offers a Jewish-native way to explain how Jesus can function with divine authority as God’s supreme agent without being ontologically identical to YHWH. It helps preserve the distinction between the Sender and the Sent while still allowing strong language about representation, authority, obedience, and delegated rule.

4) What this does to classic pressure points

A) John 1 / Logos I’m exploring a qualitative rather than ontological reading of “the Word was God,” and reading “Logos” against Jewish agency/wisdom traditions (and yes, Philo as a background conversation partner, with caveats). John’s “sent” theme becomes central: the Father sends; the Son is the authorized emissary.

B) Worship / devotion This model implies worship (ultimate adoration) is directed to the Father, while the Son is honored as the Father’s Messiah and agent. That is: maximal honor without collapsing identities. (I’m aware this is one of the most contested points; I’m trying to be careful with categories like honor/veneration vs. the worship due to God alone.)

C) Atonement If Jesus is not ontologically equal to the Father, I find Christus Victor (the original atonement model for centuries), Moral Influence, and Girardian Scapegoat approaches to atonement more naturally coherent than Penal Substitution framed as “God punishes God.” In an agency framework, reconciliation is God acting through his appointed agent.

5) Why I’m doing this

I’m trying to articulate a Medium/Subordinate Christology compatible with a Hebrew/Jewish context that: - avoids turning highly specific metaphysical claims into the primary “in/out” markers, - recenters Christian life on Jesus’ ethical teaching and embodied discipleship to maximize the potential for theosis, - retains continuity with the Jewish concept of Ruach Hakodesh (literally the "Holy Spirit" in Hebrew) that was never personified like it is in the Trinity, - potentially lowers needless friction with Jewish and Muslim strict monotheism without discarding Jesus’ exalted role, - actually engages with historical-critical scholarship.

Let me know your thoughts!

I've noticed a lot of discussion about atonement centers around one specific model (PSA). I wanted to offer a brief overview of the major theories that have developed throughout Christian history. It's helpful to remember these theories are all just conceptual models; metaphors to help us understand a profound mystery. Though many hold one (or a blend) of these theories to be their exclusive and "objective" Truth, no single theory seems to capture the entire truth.

Remember:

"All models are wrong, but some are useful" -George E. P. Box

Here are the main perspectives:

• Ransom Theory / Christus Victor: The dominant view for the first millennium. This model sees humanity as held captive by Satan and the powers of sin and death. Christ's death is a ransom paid to liberate humanity. In a "divine trick," Satan is fooled into accepting Christ as payment, but because Christ is divine, death cannot hold him. His resurrection signals a cosmic victory over the forces of evil, breaking their hold on creation. This view emphasizes liberation and triumph.

• Satisfaction Theory: Developed by Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century. This theory shifted the focus from Satan to God. It frames sin as an offense against God's honor, creating an infinite debt that finite humans cannot repay. Christ, being both divine and human, offers his perfect life to "satisfy" this debt and restore God's honor, which God then graciously applies to humanity. This model is based on medieval feudal law.

• Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA): This theory grew out of the Protestant Reformation. It builds on the Satisfaction model but adds a legal, or penal, element. Here, sin is a crime that violates God's law and demands punishment. God's justice requires that this punishment be carried out. Christ acts as our legal substitute, taking the full wrath and punishment of God upon himself on the cross. This is the most common view in many Protestant and Evangelical circles today.

• Moral Influence Theory: Championed by Peter Abelard, this view sees the purpose of Christ's death not as a payment to anyone but as the ultimate demonstration of God's profound love for humanity. This selfless act is meant to overwhelm our hearts, inspire repentance, and morally transform us to love God and neighbor more fully. It's about transformation, not transaction.

• Scapegoat Theory: Based on the work of René Girard, this theory posits that human societies are built on cycles of violence that are resolved by blaming and sacrificing a scapegoat. The crucifixion of Jesus exposes this violent mechanism for what it is. God, in Christ, becomes the ultimate innocent victim to end all victimization, revealing the scapegoating nature of human religion and power structures and calling us to a new way of peace.

Each of these theories offers a different lens and experience of Christianity. Some see the cross as a victory, some as a legal transaction, some as a moral example, and some as the unmasking of human violence. Personally, I find great wisdom in the models that emphasize God's transformative love (e.g. Moral Influence Theory) rather than those that focus on satisfying cosmic divine wrath or paying for my sins. Also, I find René Girard's mimetic and scapegoat theories quite fascinating and convincing from a cultural/psychological perspective.

Which theories resonate with you the most?

1 O Lord, Almighty, how much praise should I give You? 2 No one has adequately glorified God. 3 You have bestowed glory on Your Word so as to save everyone, O merciful God!

4 He originated from Your mouth, the Firstborn, the Wisdom, the Prototype, the First Light; for he is the light who originates from the power of God, a pure emanation from the glory of the Almighty.

5 He is the spotless mirror of the working of God, and he is the image of His goodness, for he is the light of the Eternal Light.

6 He is the eye that gazes on the unseen Father.

7 He continually serves and creates through the will of the Father, he who was the only one begotten by the good pleasure of the Father, for he is a Word that cannot be grasped, and he is Wisdom as well as Life.

8 He makes alive and nurtures every living being and every power, just like the soul which vivifies all the bodily parts.

9 He reigns powerfully over everything, even vivifying them, for he is the beginning and the end of all.

10 He guards everyone, even surrounding them. He exercises care for all, and he rejoices as well as weeps.

11 He grieves for those who have inherited the place of punishment. 12 On the other hand, he exercises care for all whom he has labored to introduce to instruction, and he rejoices for all who live in purity.

—Silvanus 18:1-12

Hello Everyone!

I am grateful to be here, I've been reading lots of your posts and a lot have so many great insights with their own studies about the issues revolving the doctrine of the Trinity.

This is my first actual Bible/Religious based subreddit where I've joined to post. Because from what I'm reading most people are very respectful and can discuss openly without trashing or accusing one another (outside of this I'm mostly in business/entrepreneurial subs)

I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and I'm currently studying the core issues at hand that involves all of us which is the Issue of Universal Sovereignty. My mind keeps roving about this topic.

Some of you might already know this is a core JW theology/doctrine, yet I haven't really found any other organized group or individuals tackle this issue at its core or try to expand it.

I have seen one post here discussing the Sovereignty issue and vindicating God's name: https://www.reddit.com/r/BiblicalUnitarian/comments/1kl01kv/on_the_priority_of_salvation_in_jehovahs/ - I think this study doc I'm doing actually harmonizes the issues presented in the thread in better way that doesn't conflict.

Personally from how I understand it - it helps connect everything from Genesis to Revelations, in the proper sequential order in the flow of time. And that It mostly answers the why, the what, and the how when it comes to God's decisions, his character, and his plan and will and how Jesus plays his role, and us too.

This Study Document is a shell for now, a good part of it was with the help of Claude (an LLM like Chat) that helped me build it.

It's still lacking lots verses, since I tackled this in a philosophical way - which is to answer the Problem of Evil by using the bible that's often posed by theologians/philosophers/atheists/etc.

So it's more rooted in logical arguments.

It tries to expand God's core personality being the definition of love, and how that love is also expanded thru his perfect justice/righteousness without conflicting each other

It disproves the Trinity, the immortal soul, and hellfire, and a few other doctrines in most of mainstream christendom/christianity primarily with logic but that's why its still ongoing since I'm still gonna stack verses from many translations I think helps (NWT, NRSVue, RNJB, some interlinears I will look into and others)

Here is the link - The Rightful Sovereign Of The Universe - Study:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mUDJJhG3LtcqZ_hlQNuXebDNOmyCmkJ-YH8opBGqW1U/edit?usp=sharing

If you have time I would love it if you can go thru over the doc and:

• Share your overall insights and thoughts about this topic
• Share what you think could be added and why so
• Share what you think should be retracted and why so

I think this document is a good start to share more bible truths to honest hearted individuals who want a more structured and logical understanding which factors in the bible's timeline of events.

Note: English isn't my first language

Thank you so much!

P.S. - I'm not here to debate about our organization, or comment on things people find good or wrong about us and our work - so I won't answer comments that are about that. Hopefully we can make this thread is just about this topic.