The Real Kosher Jesus

[Download MP3]

Dr. Brown shares insights from his book The Real Kosher Jesus, focusing on Yeshua the rabbi, prophet, lamb of God, great High Priest, Messiah, and more. Dr. Brown will also take your Jewish-related questions. Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.


Hour 1:



Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Yeshua prophesied the destruction of the temple and the scattering of our people. He also said the day will come when a Jewish Jerusalem would welcome Him back. May God hasten that day!


Hour 2:



Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Expect more and more focus to come on Jerusalem until the ultimate focus, the return of the King.


This Week Only: Order Holy Fire, Dr. Brown’s Best Book on
Revival, and we will Pay the Postage (U.S. Only). Also you get the Entire Teaching Series on Revival for Free by
Digital Download)

Call 1-800-278-9978 or Order Online!

Other Resources:

An Interview with Messianic Jewish Rabbi Itzhak Shapira on His New Book “The Return of the Kosher Pig”

An Interview with a Jewish Professor Wanting to Reclaim Jesus As an Authentic Jew and Then Dr. Brown Explains the Nature of Jewish Objections to Jesus

David Brickner Talks About His Dialog with John Piper and Dr. Brown Talks About the Original Language of the New Testament

  1. Since I don’t know much about Judaism, I don’t usually have too much to say about the “Jewish Thursday” shows.

    But Dr. Brown emphasized Jesus’s Jewishness today. He was a Jew in Israel. (and the messiah, of course). This seems as obvious as the day is long.

    But today’s show raises an interesting question: did Jesus know that he was starting a whole new religion? Or did he think of himself only in the Jewish context?

    I’d be curious to hear what people think about that.

  2. There has always only been one true religion. The Messiah came in fulfillment of the prophesies of that religion. We must be grafted into Israel to participate in the covenants and promises of YHWH. There is only one household of YHWH. The new covenant is with Judah and Israel.

    Romans 9
    4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
    5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

    Romans 11
    17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
    18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

    Ephesians 2
    10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
    11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
    12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
    13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ…
    16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
    17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
    18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
    19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
    20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
    21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

    Jeremiah 31
    31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:


  3. Bo,

    So, you believe that Christians are “grafted in” Jews? We are the new Jews.

    OK, fine. But that doesn’t answer my question.

    Did Jesus know that he was starting “Christianity”?

  4. This isn’t a hard question.

    Did Jesus know that he was starting Christianity?

    If so, what is the biblical evidence?

  5. LOFRadio,
    I sent a question to Dr. Brown today, and I fear it may have been sent too late. I would really appreciate it being sent. It was concerning the false prophet.

  6. Will all Jews be saved? I think that the mystery in this question lies hidden in Isaiah 25: 8

    The Lord will wipe away all tears (holocaust)(persecution)
    and take away forever all insults
    all mockery againsts his land his people.
    The Lord has spoken! he will surely do it!

  7. jon,
    Are you asking if EVERY single Jew would be saved – including brothers Hophni and Phineas (for whom God said there would never be an offering for atonement [1 Sam 3:14])?
    How about Nadab and Abihu?
    These, though chosen and ordained to draw near to the LORD, did not approach Him in accordance with His prescribed pattern (but broke order and the Word) and were summarily rejected as people who would draw near to Him.

    Would you argue for their salvation?

  8. jon,

    You really think “Son of Sam” Berkowitz is going to the eternal reward of heaven simply because he’s a Jew?

    Sometimes you have to square your interpretation of one verse with other scriptures and with common sense.

  9. >> The Lord will wipe away all tears (holocaust)(persecution)

    What makes you jump to the assumption that this verse is about the Nazis and not about the Assyrians?

    Arbitrarily layering modernity on scripture can also lead you to dubious interpretations.

  10. Greg

    I will attempt to answer your question

    I do not thing Jesus was attending to Start a new religion.

    I think he goal was to correct the errors of the faith and fullfill his mission.

    As far as Gentiles being grafed in to Jewish blood line…. I don’t see it that way. Dr. Brown referenced passages ona previous show that illustrated that it was all part of the plan that Gentiles and Jewish people would be together to worship God.

  11. Greg Allen,

    You wrote:
    “So, you believe that Christians are “grafted in” Jews? We are the new Jews.

    OK, fine. But that doesn’t answer my question.

    Did Jesus know that he was starting “Christianity”?”

    No, I do not think that we are grafted in Jews or that we are the new Jews. The Jews are only about one twelfth of YHWH’s chosen people. Israel was scattered to every nation and those that repent and turn back to YHWH along with grafted in gentiles that have joined themselves to YHWH will be regathered in the last days. There is not a new chosen people. YHWH is not an “Indian giver” or actually a white man giver.

    Romans 11
    29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

    Romans 9
    4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

    Y’shua knew that the kingdom of heaven would become corrupted. He warned of such often.

    Matthew 13
    24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
    25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
    26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
    27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
    28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
    29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
    30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
    31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
    32 Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.
    33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

    The Kingdom of Heaven becomes contaminated with false grain, leavened with sin, and mutates into a tree that houses demons/unclean birds. But this will be dealt with and rectified at the end. Whoever endures till the end will be saved.

    Matthew 13
    36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.
    37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
    38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
    39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
    40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
    41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
    42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
    43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

    Matthew 24
    12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
    13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

    Revelation 14
    12 here is the endurance of the saints, who keep the commandments of god and the faith of jesus.

    The sign of an apostate person, church, culture, country, etc. is their rejection of keeping YHWH’s commandments which is iniquity and lawlessness/lawbreaking.

    Messiah did not come to produce a people or a religion that for all practical purposes ignore or reject His Father’s law. He did not come to establish a new religion, but to cut a new covenant that would give us a fresh start in the one and only true religion.

    Many will think that they are wheat when they are actually tares. Many will be leavened with commandment breaking. Many will be very comfortable with a church system that is full or uncleanness and doctrines of demons. Many will call Him “Lord, lord.”

    Matthew 7
    21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord!’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but /only/ the one who does the will of My Father in heaven.
    22 On that day many will say to Me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in Your name, drive out demons in Your name, and do many miracles in Your name?’
    23 Then I will announce to them, ‘I never knew you! Depart from Me, you lawbreakers!’

    I would say that Messiah knew what would come about after His death and resurrection. However, He did not approve of starting any new religion…no matter what one might choose to call it.

    Mt 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

    17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
    18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

    A sure sign of the corruption and leaven and demonic doctrine is the modern acceptance of homosexuality and abortion. Two things that you accept, Greg. YHWH’s wrath is reserved for those that practice such things and those that approve of those that do such things. It really is past time for you to repent…if it is still possible.

    Romans 1
    32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

    Deuteronomy 29
    18b …lest there should be among you a root that beareth gall and wormwood;
    19 And it come to pass, when he heareth the words of this curse, that he bless himself in his heart, saying, I shall have peace, though I walk in the imagination of mine heart, to add drunkenness to thirst:
    20 The LORD will not spare him, but then the anger of the LORD and his jealousy shall smoke against that man, and all the curses that are written in this book shall lie upon him, and the LORD shall blot out his name from under heaven.

    Hebrews 12
    15 Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;
    16 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.
    17 For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.

    You are helping the root of bitterness (gall and wormwood) to grow and you are causing many to be defiled. The judgment at the end for those that say “Lord, lord” but do not obey Messiah and His Father is well deserved and an absolute certainty. If it is not too late for you, like it was for Esau, please repent and be saved…not from conservatism, as you have spoken of in the past, but from your sin.

  12. Dr Brown

    In your book you state, “It is important to understand that the word echad does not point to absolute unity; It simply means ‘one’ as in ‘one day consisting of night and day’.” [p. 133]

    The facts are that “one” can describe any noun in the universe. “One” means “one single” not “two” or “three” or more. To suggest, as on p. 133, that “night and day” involved in “one day” affects the meaning of “one” is fraudulent. “One day” is simply “one day”, not more than “one day”. This is an elementary language fact. Which can be examined by looking at all 970 occurrences of echad in the Hebrew Bible.

    On your show you rightly said that “one” can modify an individual or a group. The meaning of “one” is exactly the same in both of these cases. It is misleading to insinuate that in the phrase “one family” the word “one” has somehow changed its meaning.

    This whole matter has become impossibly complicated for the general public. Perhaps Ezek 33.24 will settle their minds on a very simple issue. We read there that “Abraham was one/echad“. Translations render correctly that “Abraham was only one person”. We can equally say “one single person”. It is simply false to imply under a cloak of “learning” that echad in itself means anything other than “one single”. This is its meaning just exactly like the word “one” in English.

    Now the Shema in the Greek NT inspired scripture: “The LORD our God is One LORD” [Mar 12.29].

    This is precisely the same in English and in Greek as “the LORD our God is One Single LORD”. LORD here is the equivalent to YHWH and we all know that YHWH is never accompanied by plural verbs, pronouns or adjectives.

    Following Jesus’ hearty agreement with a Jewish scribe that “The LORD our God is One LORD”, Jesus immediately went on to describe his own relationship to that “One LORD”. He identifies himself as “my lord” [adoni] of Ps 110.1. In that Psalm the One YHWH addresses “my lord”, the Messiah.

    Paul in 1Cor 8.4-6 makes the same unequivocal statement about how many God is: “To us Christians there is One God, the Father, and no one else beside Him.” [vv.4-6].

    Jesus is the lord Messiah for Paul in the immediately following words. Jesus is distinct from the One God as being the lord Messiah who was born in Bethlehem, Luke 2.11. Jesus is also the LORD’s Messiah, Luke 2.26.

    If you are going to argue for the Trinity please abandon the language trick involved in false statements about the easy word echad.

    Robert Morey in The Trinity Evidence and Issues has the gall to give us a section entitled “Two Yahwehs”. This is plain polytheism. He also refers to Brown, Driver and Briggs, p 25, to support the idea of “compound oneness” as the required meaning of echad. The lexicon gives us no such evidence.

    Jews and Muslims are rightly antagonized by the nonsensical idea that “echad must, or can, imply a plurality in God”.

    You cannot be serious with your allegation that “night and day”, describing “one day”, tells us that there is a compound meaning in echad. It would be as laughable as to say that “one centipede means that ‘one’ signifies ‘one hundred'” or that “one” in “one Zebra” implies black and white.

    I trust that your audience will get this easy matter settled in their minds once and for all.

  13. Sir Anthony,

    Always nice to hear from you, but it’s a shame that you’re still promoting such error. All the comments I made are sound exegetically and lexicographically, while your degrading Yeshua into a created, glorified man is quite blasphemous, since he is the object of our worship in the NT.

    May you God grant you grace to repent and recant.

  14. Hi Mr. Brown, in your show you said that echad can be used to describe either a group, like “one team”, or an individual thing, like “one coin”. Which one of these is God though? Is God an individual or a group as per your example?

    You also said that echad was changed to yachid. Was that wise, to change the holy text as it originally was to something else?


  15. Professor Buzzard, I think you summarised the issue splendidly. Messy logic and even dirtier linguistics are the norm in dogma-driven scholarship. Well done and thank you.

  16. Yes, sadly messy logic and dirty linguistics are often the norm among those who have been called to a much higher purpose.

  17. Michael, thanks but you are lowering yourself to verbal tricks with echad, implying a plurality with morning and evening in ONE DAY! You must surely know that this is specious.

    “YHWH our God is one single YHWH” is the New Covenant creed of Jesus reflecting 1300 occurrences of GOD = the Father.

    In Gen 19:24, you cannot really be saying that you find two YHVHs!
    There are nearly 7000 occs., of YHVH with singular pronouns and verbs.

    You keep addressing me as though I am holding to some view unknown! Read James Dunn, read Ohlig and many others since the Reformation.

    Dr. James White is careful to say that 3 Xs cannot equal 1 X. But he eventually in his book, The Forgotten Trinity, calls the Father YHVH and Jesus YHVH! That makes 2.

    I don’t think he attempts an argumenT from ECHAD! So why do you?

  18. Mr. Buzzard, I need to firs say that I have read your books and found them quite good. You might want to look at an article I have that relates to this subject on my web site:

    As to the word ‘echad’ you are 100% correct. It is an adjective and describes a singularity. There is no way to describe the trinity in a way to be consistent with ‘echad’.

  19. Anthony, the fact that all you have left is insults doesn’t say much for your position. You had plenty of opportunity to debate me on radio and TV, and everyone can listen and watch and come to their own conclusions. You’ve not said anything new that wasn’t refuted already, so I’ll leave things there and pray for you to recant the notion that the Savior of the world, worshiped by all of creation, is merely a glorified man. Oh, and one more thing: I believe God is one. No doubt about it.

  20. I suppose anyone could make the argument that since people will not be found on the shelf in a supermarket, packaged in a cardboard cylindrical container in the aisle dedicated to baking goods and spices,…then they can not be salt.

    But should we join their ranks? What really is it that they would promote? Would it be the kingdom of heaven or not?

    Or how about “above all things” in James 5:12? Is what follows above the first and great commandment? (what about the rest of what James said?)

    What is a legalistic approach to things? What forms can legalism take? Are we all called to be private masters of how all words are to be used, and exercise the use of all words over all others? Is that our calling, or have we been missing our calling, if that’s the path we take?

    Should we play word games, intending to hear others wrongly, insisting that they use all words the way we would like them to be used and insist that such a way will be the only way for them?

    Would we then be masters of the word, or should the Word be our master?

    Is it time to return to the message of the cross?

  21. Dr Brown, as not expected, you still play the man and not the ball. I would have hoped to see more courtesy in addressing your critics, but alas. Depending on who you ask, anybody’s position can be regarded as unbiblical heresy; yours included. Popularity of belief does not imply the truthfulness of that belief by default. So everybody can fling around the h-word – it proves nothing.

    Responding to a challenge does not in and of itself mean answering a challenge, much less refuting it. I have not seen a comprehensive answer to the challenges levelled against the echad fabrications popularised by Evangelical dogmatists. And these challenges come from various corners of scholarship. You have responded, yes! But those responses seriously lack reciprocity, hence their failing to be answers, and much less so refutations.

    As apparently noticed by Musterion above, there is no relief to the catch-22 trinitarian apologists find themselves in – you included – hence the impatience and demeaning dismissiveness so predictably seen in your responses. It used to be the “plurality” of elohim, by old-school apologists, now largely outdated thanks to good an honest scholarship. But the echad fabrication doesn’t seem to die off. It is a simple matter of fact that echad doesn’t mean anything but the numerical one. Regardless of the noun it modifies, it does not get modified by the noun. One remains one, period. And this very fact forces apologists to revert to the old attempts of claiming numerical plurality in elohim when it refers to YHWH of the Bible. It is here where the catch-22 comes in. If plurality is not sufficiently achieved by elohim and sufficiently denied by echad, the Trinity is in trouble, hence the linguistic acrobatics. In the case of such an impasse, the apologist usually resorts to some ad hoc explanation, describing God as some kind of tribe or team or company or who knows what. And yes, confessing to believe in echad YHWH, that is ONE pantheon of YHWH. YHWH is not a team consisting of members. Numerical singularity is associated with YHWH, not numerical plurality.

    Applying the analogies and testing the compatibility between them and what they attempt to explain, one sees serious disjunctions between the two. These challenges need to be met, Dr Brown. Responding to these challenges insufficiently will not satisfy the challenge, especially not if it is done in ridicule.

  22. Hi Mr. Brown, perhaps you have not seen my questions in post #22 so I’ll let you respond. Meanwhile though I found an article of yours on Sid Roth’s site:

    In part you wrote:

    In the twelfth century, Moses Maimonides, writing to counter Christian and Muslim beliefs, compiled his thirteen articles of faith, recited by observant Jews daily. One of the articles states that Jews must believe that god is yachid— “absolute unity.” But this is unscriptural, since the Hebrew Bible gives clear indications of God’s composite unity.

    [Bold mine]

    But in your show you seem to revert to using this same argument you call in your article “unscriptural” to support scripture? Have you changed your mind on this?

    In this same article you also use Gen 19.24 as a proof text to the deity of Christ. But are you saying that there are 2 Who are YHWH? And if the Spirit is also YHWH doesn’t that make 3 YHWHs?

    I hope you have time to answer these and the other questions.


  23. Jaco,

    To the contrary it appears that McGrath, in fact, argues that Christology was accepted as being within the bounds of second temple monotheism as opposed to being a heretically new introduction to the worship of the one true God. Larry Hurtado reviewed McGrath’ book, “The Only Tue [sic] God: Early Christian Monotheism in its Jewish Context” (University of Illinois Press, 2009) with these words:

    “In spite of McGrath’s energetic efforts here to make the Jesus-devotion in the NT appear uncontroversial and unremarkable…” “In Chapter 2 McGrath considers whether and to what extent Judaism was in fact a monotheistic faith’, and what diversity there may have been in the matter (23). Among important evidence, he cites examples of pagan references to Jewish religion, which agree in describing it as restricting worship to the one God, and as having no cult-images: ‘The sacrificial worship of the one God without images was the make-or-break issue’ (35). He emphasizes, however, that Jewish concern for God’s uniqueness was able otherwise to accommodate ‘significant diversity’” (36).*


    Hurtado, on the other hand, sees the Christological worship of the first century as being unique to monotheistic worship as practiced by the Jews.

    As far as Segal’s work, he inadvertently gives evidence that the idea of two powers was present within the intertestimonial era but was deemed heretical (his view also) only after the advent of Christianity.

  24. Thanks, Sheila

    James McGrath’s responses to Hurtado’s reviews can be read here:

    I have found his assessment of the Two Powers controversy to show to what extent Segal has gone to employ anachronism and assumption to advance this idea. The conclusion, according to McGrath, is that Segal overstates his case. I find his arguments compelling.


  25. Sheila,

    I listened to some of this: He seems to avoid the thousands of singular pronouns for GOD.

    “The Lord our God is one single Lord” is the easy proposition of Jesus in Mk 12.29!

  26. Michael, you are clever with words! God is one PERSON, as shown by the thousands of singular pronouns for GOD.

    You write, ‘I am trying to find a way to distract from the awful falsehood that echad means some sort of plurality because ONE day has morning and evening’.

    I cannot believe that with a PHD in language you have thought this through! What more can I do to make you rethink?

    I worship the Son of God as Messiah and the one God of Israel as God.

  27. Anthony, Would you call in and argue this point of view? The listeners could then contrast your point of view for it’s accuracy or not.

  28. I believe there are Christians who confess Jesus as the Son of God even though they might believe his very first beginnings were in the womb of Mary.

    I do not believe they are saying that “Jesus is not the Son of God but rather simply a wonderful
    created being” or something of that nature, just because they say his very first existence was in Mary’s womb.

    I don’t think it to be fair to say that persons with such beliefs are denying that Jesus is the Son of God, simply because they do not confess that he was in reality, existing with the Father by something more than only God’s foreknowledge.

    Which one of us should say to a parent who confesses his child as his own son, “Since you do not believe that your son existed as your son
    from his conception in the womb, therefore, I conclude that you are denying that he even is your son. Rather, you are saying that he is simply a developed being made in the image of God.”? , though to our ears at times, it might sound something like that.

  29. Jon

    If u get the “Deity of Jesus” debate you can hear the whole issue. Anthoony Buzzard is in the debate DVD.

    Anthony Buzzard will say “Pronoun, Pronoun, , Pronoun.. 1,000 times, as his stance to numerous scriptures.

    LOL… it was a great debate, And I do not mean any disrespect but it was funny. I felt like it was a debate between 3 religious scholars and 1 Grammar teacher. “Pronoun, pronoun, 1 means 1, pronoun, pronoun, etc.”

    The Dvd is a great tool and expands on various concepts. This whole issue between Dr. Buzzard & Dr. Brown are addressed there.

    One of the most interesting parts then from the debate. If you deny Jesus as deity, how do you justify worship of Jesus that is found throughout the text? If he is just man, and not a deity… is this not idolatry?

    Anthony buzzard and his co-debater gave answers, but that was an interesting pt of the debate.

    Basically, I suggest getting the DVD Jon & others.

  30. Hello Mr.Brown,

    I assume that you still affirm as you did the debate with Dr.Buzzard that

    “There is one Father, one Son, one spirit, who is all PART of this one God”

    “God is one COMPLEX in his unity”

    Complex definition

    Consisting of many different and connected parts.


    So you believe Jaco champions unbiblical heresy?Really?

    Hmmm well looky here on this christian website!

    Trinitarian heresies (Part 9 partialism)

    “Partialism teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each “parts”, or components, of God.”

    What you said in the debate

    “There is one Father, one Son, one spirit, who is all PART of this one God”

    So…what? Do you believe in a lego block YHWH? That demoted himself(themselves?it?) to a zygote?

    Are you championing a demoted God over an exalted man?

  31. All,

    Sorry to post off-topic. Just want to draw your attention to something the MSM is largely ignoring in its coverage of the upheaval in Egypt: the increased persecution of the Coptic Christians by the Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters. Please keep the Coptic Church in your prayers. This ancient Church goes back to the 1st century and the Islamists will take (and already are taking) this chance to try to wipe the Copts out.

  32. Sir Anthony, Your point about pronouns (actually verbal forms) is significant, but it is ignored because of the few exceptions. However many Christians, even Trinitarians, recognize that these exceptions are ‘proof’. I believe that Geisler and Howe in their book have a comment on Gen 2 making this point.
    One of the best arguments I have heard from you is that it is hard to imagine Jewish person from that time saying such a thing. Both Josephus (in Contra Apion) and Philo touch on the issue of the nature of God and confirm that Jews believed then as now that God is one and not a ‘complex unity’. Philo is actually every specific on that.

  33. Sir Anthony,another point. We have no problem saying what we mean as God is one. What I find interesting is to ask a trinitarian what they mean. The answers are usually either polytheistic, heretical or just absurd.

  34. malachicanuck,

    It’s more than difficult to determine what it is you believe. The “Statement of Faith” as posted on the website you gave above states the following:

    “THE TRINITY. God is revealed to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being.”

    So, are you a Trinitarian of sorts or a Unitarian?

Comments are closed.