|
|
|
Revelation of Jesus Christ
1st Tim. 3:16
1) It is important to know your God
a) Dan. 11:32,33
2) The revelation of Jesus Christ
a) Matt. 11:27
3) Oneness of the Lord
a) Deut. 4:35, Deut. 6:4
b) Mark 12:29
c) Isaiah 44:8
d) James 2:19
4). The doctrine of Trinitarianism- One God exists as 3 persons
a) God the Father
b) God the Son
c) God the Holy Ghost
5). The doctrine of Monotheism- One God who exists not as 3 persons but one person who is able to manifest himself in unlimited number of administrations and ministerial manifestations.
6) The word of the trinity The word of the Lord
a) God is 3 distinct persons----------------------------> Job 13:7-8
2 Cor. 2:10
Heb.1: 1-3
b) God is the Holy Trinity----------------------------------> Holy Trinity is found 0 times
-------------------------------->The Holy one is found 40 times
---------------------------------> The One is found 52 times
c) God the Father---------------------------------------------> Found 13 times
d) God the Son--------------------------------------------------> found 0 times
e) God the Holy Ghost----------------------------------------> found 0 times
6) There are 2 reasons why people don't understand the mystery of Godliness
a) Matt. 22:29 Not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God.
7) The Incarnation of the Almighty God
point 1 Isaiah 43:3,10,11
Isaiah 45: 21,22
Hosea 13:4
1Tim. 4:10
Conclusion: God is the only savior
Point 2 John 4:24
Conclusion: God is a Spirit
Point 3 Luke 24:39
Lev. 17:11
Conclusion: God does not have flesh, blood and bones!
Point 4 Num. 23:19
1 Sam.15:29
Job 9:32
Hosea 11:9
Conclusion: God is not a man!
Point 5 Heb. 9:22
Matt. 26:28-29
1 John 1:7
Conclusion: God requires the shedding of blood for the remission of sins
Solution: God, who is the only Saviour, is a Spirit, He is not a man, and does not exist as flesh, blood and bones.
Since the shedding of blood is required for the remission of sins for salvation, God partook of flesh, blood and bones, and became a man so He could shed his blood for the remission of man's sins. 2 Cor. 5:19
8) The Lord shall go forth as a mighty man!
Isaiah 42:13
1 Cor. 15:47
1 Tim. 2:5
Isaiah 35:4-6
Preparation
Heb. 10:4-5
Phillipians. 2:5-8
The Manifestation
Luke 1:35
Gal.4:4
John 1:1,10,14
1 John 4:2,3
1 Tim.4:2,3
The confirmation
John 14:8-10
Coloss. 1:19, 2:9
2 Cor.5:19
The motivation
John 3:16
Heb. 2:9,14,15,17
Heb.4:15
KEY.
Jesus was both human (man) and divine (God) in his humanity he spake as a man and in his divinity he spake as a the Almighty God!
1) Jesus speaking in humanity
Statement: John 14:28
Explanation: Job. 33:12
Statement: Matt. 24:36
Explanation: Colossians 2:2,3
Statement: Luke 23:34
Explanation: Psalms 65:02
2) Jesus speaking in His divinity as the Almighty God.
Matt 9:4, 18:19,20, 28:16-18
Mark 2: 5-7
John 8: 51-53,56-58
John19:21
God all Knowing Jesus all Knowing
1 Kings 8:28,39 Matt. 9:4
God all existing Jesus all existing
Psalms 139: 7-10 Matt. 18:19,20
God all powerful Jesus all powerful
Psalms 62:11 Matt 28:18
Scriptures declaring the divinity of Christ!
1 John 3:16
1 John 5:20
Isaiah 9:6
Titus 2:13
Isaiah 44:6
Rev. 22:13-16
Rev. 21:6-7
If it is difficult to believe Jesus was God than maybe it would be easier to believe God was Jesus.
God is the Father in creation, the Son in redemption, the Holy Ghost in regeneration.
He came into the world and His own received Him not. Jesus is the example of the plan of Salvation. Died, buried and resurrected! When we repent we Die to sin, when we are baptized in His name we are buried with him, then when we receive the gift of the Holy Ghost we are resurrected to newness of life! Jesus said, lo, I am with you, but I shall be in you!
Jesus said, "destroy this temple and "I WILL REBUILD IT IN 3 DAYS"
Jesus is God!
There is only one scripture found that says in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. First, Father, Son, and Holy ghost are titles what is the name given. Second, the disciples knew who He was ,He spent 40 days teaching them after His resurrection. If we look carefully at the Scripture in Matthew Notice, in the Name is singular. (not in the names)
The Lord told them to tarry til they be endude with power and when the day of pentecost was fully come. Now Peter, whom Jesus said, Upon this rock will I build my church, (Jesus is the rock), preached the message of salvation on the day of pentecost he said, ACTS 2:38.
Food For Thought! If the Holy Ghost overshadowed Mary and she conceived which one is the Father, the Father or the Holy Ghost? Is it that the Father and the Holy ghost are the same!
If all power in heaven and earth was given to Jesus would there by mere definition be other persons of the Godhead that would actually be a God without any power?
Rev. Donald T. Rollins
How Many is God?
This work is dedicated to Bro. Tom B,
who had the courage to tell
a fifteen year old boy that God is One.
I was that boy, and I’ve never forgotten.
PROLOGUE
“What do you believe, then?” This is the question I am most often asked when I mention to people that I don’t believe in the Trinity. One Christian Brother, a dedicated man of God, even declared that I could not be a fundamentalist Christian if I did not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity.
So what do I believe? Do I deny the deity of Jesus Christ? Never! Do I disbelieve the existence of the Father or the Holy Ghost? Not at all! Then what exactly is my teaching? It is called Oneness. Throughout Christian history, it has been called many other names by well-meaning people who didn’t understand it. Names such as Sabellianism (after Bishop Sabellius, an early Oneness believer), Modalism, and Jesus Only have been assigned to the doctrine of the Oneness of God. Much has been written against this teaching, and yet, upon reading these anti-Oneness writings, it becomes clear that the authors did not comprehend the doctrine, and were basing their works on what they thought Oneness taught. I once heard a Pentecostal minister decry the Oneness doctrine from his pulpit, telling his flock to beware “those Oneness people, who won’t let Jesus have a Daddy.” Does Oneness teach that Jesus had no Father? No, it doesn’t.
I have often been asked by Trinitarians to explain to them what I believe. A surprising number of these people, upon hearing what Oneness teaches, have responded by saying, “But that’s what I believe!” My answer to them is this: “Then you are not a Trinitarian.” An even greater number of self-professed Trinitarians express believe in a doctrine that falls somewhere between Trinitarianism and Oneness. The truth is, believers in orthodox Trinitarianism have been a very small minority. For this reason, I have chosen to begin this writing with a section on the Trinity and orthodox Trinitarian belief. Before doing so, I would like to make the following statement regarding Trinitarians:
Trinitarian Christians are my sisters and brothers. I love and respect them, and will worship with them if welcomed to do so. I stand always ready to explain Oneness to any of them, but will not attempt to force my beliefs on anyone. I will not judge anyone, nor do I believe that a person must believe in Oneness to be saved. I do not have the right, nor does any Christian, Oneness or Trinitarian, to decide who will and who will not be saved. In the words of John, “Let us love one another…,” and leave the judgment to God.
SECTION 1
What is the Trinity? And who is Trinitarian? Throughout this writing, I will be using the term “orthodox Trinitarian.” This refers to a person who believes in the doctrine of the Trinity as it is laid out in the early creeds, and as it is accepted by nearly all Christian denominations. This is in contrast to a “nominal Trinitarian,” who considers him/herself Trinitarian, but whose actual concept of the Godhead is not Trinitarian in the orthodox sense. Nominal Trinitarians may range anywhere from an untaught knowledge of Oneness to a hybrid Trinitarianism to a pure Unitarianism. (Note: Oneness and Unitarianism are not the same. Unitarianism teaches that Jesus is not God.) Some nominal Trinitarians have no clear concept of the Godhead at all, and call themselves Trinitarian simply because their churches use the word Trinity.
Early Trinitarian writings include the Nicene Creed (Council of Nicea, 325 AD) and the Quicumque Vult (Latin: “Whoever wants”). Also known as the Athanasian Creed, the Quicumque Vult was written somewhere between 300 and 500 AD. It is this writer’s belief that it was written after the Nicene Creed.
The Council of Nicea was the first serious attempt to make the Trinitarian concept of the Godhead official church teaching. Those of opposing viewpoints, including the Oneness Bishops, refused to accept the resulting creed, and were excommunicated. Oddly enough, the Nicene creed enforced Trinitarian belief, but did little to explain the doctrine of the Trinity. In fact, the accompanying anathema (curse) actually seems to contain more doctrine than the main body of the creed. Not that it explained the Trinity, either; it was meant as an attack on believers in Oneness.
Orthodox Trinitarianism teaches that the Godhead is an incomprehensible mystery. It goes on to explain that there is one God who eternally exists in three Persons. These Persons are separate, co-equal and co-existent.
This doctrine necessitates the existence of three thrones in heaven, since the Godhead is made up of three Persons. The terms God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost) are used to describe the three. (Although the phrase “God the Father” is found in scripture, neither “God the Son” nor “God the Holy Spirit” is found there.) While this may not reflect the beliefs of some readers, it is nonetheless orthodox Trinitarianism, and is the accepted belief of the vast majority of Christian churches.
The Nicene Creed, translated directly from Greek, is as follows:
1. To believe in one God,
2. Father almighty,
3. Maker of all things visible and invisible.
4. And in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
5. the Son of God,
6. the only son born of the Father
7. that is, from the substance of the Father:
8. God from God, Light from Light,
9. True God from True God,
10. Born, not made,
11. of the same substance as the Father,
12. through whom all things were born,
13. both in heaven and on earth.
14. Because of us men
15. and for the sake of our salvation,
16. came down and took on flesh,
17. became man, suffered,
18. and rose up on the third day,
19. ascended into heaven,
20. and will come to judge the living and the dead.
21. And in the Holy Spirit.
22. The Catholic and apostolic church will surely anathematize (curse) anyone who asserts that there was a time when He (that is, Christ) wasn’t, and that before He was born, He was not, or that He was not truly born, or that He is not of the same substance or being as the Creator, or that He is changeable, or that He is other than the Son of God.
Now here is a portion of the text of the Quicumque Vult, translated directly from the original Latin:
1. Whoever wants to be saved, before all needs to hold the Catholic faith,
2. which, unless one keeps it wholly and inviolately, without doubt he will perish in eternity.
3. Now this is the Catholic faith: That we worship one God in Trinity, and the Trinity in unity,
4. neither confusing the Persons, nor dividing the substance.
5. There is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the divinity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is one: equal Gloria, co-eternal majesty…
7. Thus, the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God,
8. and yet there are not three gods, but one God.
9. Thus, the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, the Holy Spirit is Lord,
10. and yet there are not three lords, but one Lord.
11. For as Christian truth compels us to acknowledge singly each Person and God and Lord,
12. thus the Catholic religion forbids us to say three gods or three lords.
13. The Father is made by no one, neither created nor begotton.
14. The Son is only from the Father, not made or created, but begotten.
15. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made or created or begotten, but proceeding forth.
16. Therefore there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.
17. In this Trinity, none is before or after, none is greater or lesser, but all three Persons are co-eternal and co-equal.
18. Thus through all, as already mentioned above, both Trinity in unity and unity in Trinity are to be worshipped.
19. Who wants to be saved must perceive the Trinity thus…
20. This is the Catholic faith, which, unless one believes faithfully and firmly, he will not be able to be saved.
The reader will note that the Athanasian Creed is far more explicit in its definition of the Trinity than Nicea was. The reason for this, I believe, was the failure of Nicea to fully define the teaching it was declaring to be an essential part of Christianity.
Both Creeds proclaim that God is one (Nicea, Line 1; Athanasius, Line 3). Athanasius declares that God is three Persons (Line 5) and that all three are equal and co-eternal (Lines 6, 17). Nicea threatens non-Trinitarians with being cursed by the church, while Athanasius claims that belief in the Trinity is paramount both to Christianity and salvation.
Early Oneness believers accused the Trinitarians of tritheism, that is, belief in three gods. Naturally, the accusation was denied, and both creeds do state that God is one. But let us look more closely at Athanasius: Line 7 declares that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God. Line 8 says that there are not three gods, but one. Line 9 says that the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord and the Holy Spirit is Lord. Line 10 says that there are not three lords, but one.
But now, look at lines 11 and 12: “For as Christian truth compels us to acknowledge singly each Person and God and Lord, thus the Catholic religion forbids us to say three gods or three lords.” Let me restate that in plainer English: “Christian truth forces us to acknowledge individually each Person, each God, and each Lord, but the Catholic religion forbids us to say that they are three Gods or three Lords.” In other words, we believe in three Gods, but we’re not allowed to admit it!
Many will say at this point that neither creed should be the basis of doctrine, but rather the scripture should decide. And I say, “Amen!” Let’s take the Trinity to the Bible, and see what happens.
We have our three Persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. We can all agree that Jesus is the Son. But now, I ask you, which of the remaining two is the Father of Jesus? Trinitarian teaching says that the Person we’re calling the Father is the Father of Jesus. What does the Bible say? According to Matthew 1:18, 20, Mary became pregnant by the Holy Ghost, which would make the Holy Ghost the Father of Jesus. This leaves us with only two possibilities: Either the Persons we’re calling Father and Holy Ghost are one and the same Person, or Jesus was calling the wrong one Father! Is it possible that the Father and the Holy Spirit are the same Person? Jesus told us that God is a Spirit (singular). (John 4:24) Ephesians 4:4 says that there is only one Spirit. Since there is no other Spirit, the Father, God, must be the Holy Spirit. The Jews also understood their God to be a Spirit, and understood David’s reference to the Holy Spirit in Ps. 51:11 to mean God Himself.
In Matthew 28:18, Jesus declared that all power in heaven and earth was now His. Where did that leave the Father and Holy Ghost? If there are three Persons in the Godhead, two of them were suddenly without any power. A person without any power cannot be God.
Athanasius line 4 warned us against “confusing the Persons.” And yet, by simply looking at a few verses of scripture, the “Persons” are plenty confused! Isaiah 9:6 will confuse them even further, because Isaiah said that the Son (Jesus) would be called the “everlasting Father.” Jesus told Phillip and the other disciples that by seeing Him, that had already seen the Father. (John 14:9)
But Athanasius said not to confuse the Persons. Well, that’s fine, as long as we don’t open the Bible. But once we open the scripture, the Trinitarian doctrine gets very confusing, and it becomes impossible to tell whether God is one, two, three, or twenty. No wonder they just say “It’s a mystery!” By the way, ancient Babylon also worshipped a trinitarian godhead, which they couldn’t explain either. They called it a mystery, and “mystery” became their explanation for any doctrine they couldn’t explain or prove. The Roman church adopted the same explanation for many of their doctrines, including the Trinity and transubstantiation.
The prophet Isaiah found himself standing before the throne of God. (Is. 6:1) Only one throne was there, and only one Person sat on it. Where were the other two Persons? The apostle John also found himself standing before God’s throne. (Rev. 4:2) Again, only one throne, and One sat on it. Where were the other two? Some would say that the lamb in Rev. 5:6 was Jesus. While the lamb symbolized Jesus, Jesus is no more a slain lamb than the Holy Ghost is a bird! The only real God was on the throne.
With my apologies to Athanasius, it is not possible to avoid confusing the Persons of the Trinity, if one considers them separate Persons as the doctrine teaches. The orthodox Trinity falls apart, or more accurately, merges into one Person, every time we open the Bible. And one Person in the Godhead is not Trinitarianism; it’s Oneness!
Section 2
What is the doctrine of Oneness?
There is one God. (Deut. 6:4; Mk. 12:29; James 2:19)
God is a Spirit. (John 4:24)
This one Spirit, known as Jehovah or Yahweh (Hebrew: YHVH; Exodus 6:3), caused Mary to conceive. (Mt. 1:18, 20)
From the physical perspective, the resulting baby was the son of God, since the Spirit Jehovah was his Father.
The Spirit then inhabited this body for the purpose of our salvation. (2 Cor. 5:19)
The child was named Jesus. (original Hebrew: Yehoshua, a name formed by taking the YHVH of Jehovah and combining it with the word hashua, which means salvation. The resulting name implies that “Jehovah has become salvation.” See Is. 12:2.)
This is why the son could be called the Father (Is. 9:6), for the Father, that is God, the one Spirit, was in the son, that is, the flesh. The son did not exist until Mary conceived him. (Trinitarian teaching maintains that the Son always existed.) Ps. 2:7 and Hebrews 1:5 teach us that the son did indeed have a beginning.
Jesus was Immanuel, that is, God with us, because all the fullness of the Godhead was in Him. (Col. 2:9)
From His mother, Jesus inherited a human body and a human nature. As a human, he felt hunger, thirst, pain and fear. He prayed and cried as a man. But the Spirit of God also inhabited that body. As God, He forgave sins, healed the sick and raised the dead. Did God die on the cross? No. By definition, God cannot die. It was the son, the flesh, the man Jesus who died. By becoming the sacrifice, Jesus became sin for us. (2 Cor. 5:21) By doing so, he took upon himself every sin ever committed. The Spirit of God would not remain in the presence of sin, and withdrew from Jesus. (Mt. 27:46; Mk. 15:34) Thus, only the man, the son, died. The Spirit and flesh were reunited following the resurrection. (Jn. 20:17)
In Trinitarian theology, the Jehovah of the Old Testament is understood to be God the Father. With this thought in mind, let us make some comparisons of scripture, and draw some conclusions:
Is. 44:24 and 45:18 say that Jehovah created the heavens and the earth. John 1:3 says that Jesus created everything.
Is. 43:11 says that Jehovah is the only Savior. Mt. 1:21 says that Jesus will save us.
Is. 44:6 says that Jehovah is the First and the Last. Rev. 1:11, 17, 18 and 22:13 say that Jesus is the First and the Last. Can there be two Firsts and Lasts?
Is. 54:5 says that Jehovah is our Husband. Rev. 21:9 says that we are the Bride of the Lamb, that is, Jesus.
We believe that the Bible does not contradict itself. Therefore, we have no choice but to admit that the Jesus of the New Testament is the Jehovah of the Old Testament.
SOME QUESTIONS
Is the Godhead a mystery? 1 Tim. 3:16 calls it a mystery, but the same verse reveals the mystery, so that it’s a mystery no more: “...God was manifest in the flesh…” 2 Cor. 5:19 says it again: “…God was in Christ….”
Doesn’t Matthew 28:19 prove that God is three Persons? Does it? What does the previous verse say? Jesus said that all power was given to Him, and went on to say in v. 19 “Go ye therefore (that is, because I have all power)… baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost….” So Jesus said that because He had all power, we were to baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. And I ask you, what is the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost? Father, Son and Holy Ghost are not names, but titles. And the word “name” in verse 19 is singular, indicating that there is one name that applies to all three titles. There’s no question that the Son’s name is Jesus. (Mt. 1:21) But what is the Father’s name? Is it just God? No, that’s also a title. Is it Jehovah? It was, in the Old Testament. But the name “Jesus” contains the name “Jehovah.” Jesus, as a man, said, “I have come in my Father’s name…” (Jn. 5:43) The Greek preposition translated “in” implies “using.” So if the name that Jesus was using as His own was the Father’s, then the name “Jesus” must apply to the Father as well as the son. In prayer, Jesus said, “I have manifested (that is, shown or revealed) thy name…” (Jn. 17:6) The only name He manifested was “Jesus.” And logically, a son should bear his Father’s name.
What about the Holy Ghost? Does the Holy Ghost have a name? Jn. 14:26 tells us that the Holy Ghost also comes in (using) the name of Jesus. Therefore, the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is Jesus. Want further proof? Look how the command of Mt. 28:19 was carried out by the Apostles: Not once did they repeat the titles Father, Son and Holy Ghost in baptism. In every case, they baptized their converts, Jews, Samaritans and Gentiles, in the name of Jesus. (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5) Did they disobey the command of Mt. 28:19, or did they understand something that has eluded the church since the fourth century, that Jesus is the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? Church history confirms that the first century church always baptized in Jesus’ name. It was not until the fourth century that repeating the titles of Mt. 28:19 became universal.
What about 1 John 5:7? If you are using a King James Version, your Bible contains this verse: “for there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.” I invite you to look up the same verse in the New International Version. It isn’t there. What happened? The verse is found only in a footnote, explaining that it first appears in late manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate. It does not appear in any of the ancient Greek manuscripts. There is not even a shadow of a doubt that this verse was not part of the original epistle, but was added centuries later. It is without scriptural authority. Why was it added? Because someone realized that the scriptures would not support the teaching of a three Person Godhead. This is not some new discovery: In 1611 AD, the translators of the King James Versions had access to many ancient Greek manuscripts, and they knew full well that the verse was not in any of them. They chose to include it for the same reason it was added in the first place: They knew the scriptures would not support the Trinitarian teaching of their church.
“Let us make man in our image…” (Gen. 1:26) Doesn’t this prove more than one Person? If so, why, then, do the pronouns return to the singular in the very next verse? “…in his own image created he him… created he them.” Speaking with the “royal we” no more proves that God is three than it proved that Queen Victoria was three when she said, “We are not amused.” Deut. 6:4 translated directly from Hebrew has this to say: “Hear, O Israel: YHVH (that is, Jehovah) is our God; YHVH is one.” (In contrast to the Babylonian religion, which was already worshipping a three person god when Deuteronomy was written.)
What about John 1:1? Doesn’t it say that Jesus (the Word) was with God in the beginning? The first chapter of John’s Gospel contains a very powerful proof of Oneness. Unfortunately, those who translated the Bible into English (every English translation) hid that proof by mistranslating the first two verses of this chapter. The phrase they translated as “was with God” literally translates as “was toward the God.” Idiomatically, it means “was pertaining to God.” (In Hebrews 2:17, the exact same Greek phrase is correctly translated as “pertaining to God.”) The first two verses of John’s Gospel should read “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word pertained to God (that is, meant God), and the Word was God. This pertained to (meant) God in the beginning.”
But what is the Word? To find the answer, we have to go back to the Aramaic translation of the Old Testament. Following the Jewish people’s captivity in Babylon, Hebrew ceased to be their spoken language. Instead, Aramaic, a closely related ‘sister’ language, took its place. Aramaic was the spoken language of Jesus and His apostles. At that time, it was even written in the Hebrew alphabet. (The Jewish people still write Aramaic with the Hebrew alphabet, although the churches and Christian people that use the language today have three scripts they use, closer to Arabic than Hebrew.)
In order to facilitate study of the Jewish scriptures, an Aramaic translation had been made. The translators felt, however, that God’s name (YHVH, Jehovah) was too holy to be written in any language other than Hebrew. (Hebrew is known as l’shon hakodesh, the holy tongue.) Therefore, the translators needed a way to represent the name without actually writing it. Throughout their translation, they replaced the holy name with the Aramaic word memra. It means word. Readers coming across it would understand that it stood for God’s name, much the same as many English Bibles have replaced the name with the word LORD in all capital letters.
John wrote his Gospel in Greek, which was the language of culture in his day. Being a devout Jew, writing to devout Jews, he reasoned that if God’s name were too holy to be written in Aramaic, a language related to Hebrew and even using the same alphabet, then it was certainly far too holy to write in a “pagan” tongue like Greek. He needed a way to let his readers know he was talking about Jehovah without writing that name. He took a cue from the Aramaic, and used the word Word. The Greek equivalent was Logos.
Of course, having this “codeword” wasn’t of any use if his readers didn’t know what it meant. So his first two sentences defined it for them: “In the beginning was Logos, and Logos meant God, and Logos was God. This meant God in the beginning.” By these two sentences, his readers would understand that Logos was being used as a synonym for God. And a reader familiar with the Aramaic Old Testament would understand immediately that Logos meant Jehovah.
With this understanding, that the Word means Jehovah, let’s read verse 14: “The Word (Jehovah) was made flesh.” 1 Tim. 3:16 “…God was manifest in the flesh….” This is the doctrine of Oneness.
EPILOGUE
Perhaps the reader has questions, or wishes to study the matter further. I welcome your questions. In addition, I would recommend the following books which will be very helpful in understanding this subject:
• Ancient Champions of Oneness, by William B. Chalfant
• Is Jesus in the Godhead, or is the Godhead in Jesus? by Gordon Magee
• God in Christ Jesus, by John Paterson
• After The Way Called Heresy, by Thomas Weisser
©1990 by Lighthouse Ministries
revised for internet use 2004
Why Are We Called Apostolic?
The word apostolic means different things to different people. To some, the word conjures up images of women with long dresses and high hairdos. To others, the word applies to the form of Christianity dominant in Armenia. But what does the word apostolic mean to us, and why are we called apostolic?
The simplest definition of the word apostolic is “like the apostles.” We call ourselves apostolic because we try to do everything the way the apostles did. We believe that if the Christian life is worth living, it is worth living correctly. That means living the way the apostles lived, and teaching exactly what they taught, regardless of what the other churches teach, and regardless of what the church has been doing for the past 1900 years!
The first century church was apostolic because the apostles were there to teach the truth to people. But after 100 AD, the apostles were gone, and the church was left in the hands of people who thought they knew better than the apostles. These less-than-scrupulous church leaders began to teach things that were not right. Some, such as Montanus (c.150 AD) began to teach the doctrines of the ancient Babylonian religion, modified to fit Christianity. Others taught that the age of miracles was over. The prophecies of Joel in relation to the church (Joel 1:4,5,16) were coming to pass: The church was losing the truth. It wasn’t that God was taking the truth away from them. They were simply choosing to throw it away. They decided that their own traditions were of equal value with the word of God, despite the warnings of Jesus. (Mt. 15:8-9; Mark 7:7-9,13)
By the fourth century, the doctrines of Babylon had almost totally replaced the original teachings of the apostles. At the Council of Nicea (325 AD), the Babylonian teachings were made official Christian doctrine, and the few bishops who still taught apostolic truth were excommunicated. Thus began the Dark Ages of the church. But Jesus said that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church. (Mt. 16:18) And Joel, who predicted that the church would lose the truth, also prophesied that God would restore that truth. (Joel 2:23-32) In 1517, Martin Luther was given a revelation of a small piece of truth. The church he eventually founded was not much closer to apostolic truth than the Catholic church he rebelled against, but his revelation was as the first drop of rain in a coming storm.
Over the centuries, that drop of rain has grown to a veritable hurricane as the latter rain of God’s Spirit is poured out over the earth. Eighteenth and nineteenth century evangelists began to stress the importance of a personal relationship with God. Then, in the first few moments of 1901, the events of Acts 2:4 were repeated as God poured out His Spirit in Topeka, Kansas. Between 1914 and 1916 further revelations of apostolic truth were given, as God restored the original form and meaning of water baptism to the church. At the same time came the most important revelation of all, a portion of truth lost to the church since the days when Montanus introduced the doctrines of Babylon: The revelation that there is but one God, that is, Jesus Christ.
Today, as the second coming of Jesus draws closer, it is so very important that we stay at the forefront of the ongoing restoration of apostolic truth. The church He returns for will be the one that is following the pattern that He and His apostles laid down (I Cor. 3:10-11). This doesn’t mean a denomination, as we understand the term, for God’s church knows no denominational names or boundaries. Rather, He will return for those people who have lived according to the teachings of the Bible, regardless of the name hanging over the church door. When He returns, will we be found living according to the teachings of the apostles? Or will we be found wallowing in the traditions of men and the evil doctrines of Babylon? If we truly love God, then we will want to do things His way. And the bottom line is, His way is the only one that works! Truth matters, and that is why we choose to follow the teachings of the apostles.
Lighthouse Publications
Who is Jesus?
Let's look first at the testimony of the prophets in regard to him:
Isaiah said that Jesus was both Mighty God and Everlasting Father. Those titles could only apply to the God of Israel. (Is. 9:6) Isaiah also said that Jesus would be called Immanuel. (Is. 7:14) This is Hebrew and means that "God is with us." That certainly suggests that the One bearing that title would indeed be God. Isaiah tells us that God looked for someone to bring salvation, and finding no one qualified to do so, used His own arm to do so (Is. 59:16). But God is a Spirit (John 4:24) and a spirit does not have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39), so where did God get an arm? The only possible answer is that He formed a body in the womb of Mary and inhabited it (God was IN Christ... 2 Cor. 5:19). Isaiah said that God created everything by Himself. But John said that Jesus created everything. (Is. 44:24 & 45:18; John 1:3) Isaiah said God was our only Savior (43:11) but Matthew quoted the angel as saying Jesus would save His people from their sins (Mat. 1:21). Isaiah said that our Creator is our Husband (54:5), but we are the bride of the Lamb (Rev. 21:9). Do we have two Husbands, or is Jesus our Creator?
The prophet Micah foretold the birth place of Jesus (5:2), but mentioned that the One to be born there was One whose goings forth were from old, from everlasting. Only God has always existed, so it must have been God in human form born in Bethlehem.
What about the testimony of others?
John told us who Jesus was in the first chapter of his Gospel. First we have to correct a translation error: John 1:1-2 should not say that the Word was with God. Greek has two words for 'with' but neither is found in these verses. No English translations has ever gotten these verses right, because they all say the Word was with God. Here is what John said: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word pertained to God (or meant God) and the Word was God. This pertained to (or meant) God in the beginning." (In Hebrews 2:17, the identical Greek phrase is translated properly "pertaining to God.") So what does this mean? The answer is actually found back in the Aramaic Old Testament, which was translated after the Babylonian captivity. Hebrew was no longer the spoken language of the Jews, so to facilitate study of the Bible, the Old Testament was translated into Aramaic, which was a sister language to Hebrew with similar grammar and the same alphabet. But the Jews believed God's name (what we today call Jehovah or Yahweh) was too holy to write in any language except Hebrew. So they wouldn't write it in Aramaic. They needed a code word to stand in place of the name. They chose the Aramaic word 'memra,' which means 'word.' A reader coming across the word memra in the Aramaic text would pause and mentally insert the name of God which the Jews even today believe must not be spoken aloud. John wrote his Gospel in Greek, the language of culture in the first century. But if Jewish tradition would not allow God's name to be written in Aramaic, it certainly was not going to allow it to be written in Greek. But John needed a way to show his readers that He was speaking of the God of the Old Testament. Since he couldn't write the name in Greek, he used a code word. Taking his cue from the Aramaic, he used the word 'word,' which in Greek was Logos. In his first two sentences, he attempted to define the code word so his readers would understand: "In the beginning was Logos, and Logos meant God, and Logos was God. This meant God in the beginning." By these two sentences, his readers would understand that when he said Logos, he meant God. And if his readers were familiar with the Aramaic Old Testament, they would have understood immediately that Logos meant Jehovah (or Yahweh). It wasn't until the 14th verse that John took that information and established a doctrine with it, and that doctrine was his testimony of who Jesus was: "Logos (that is, Jehovah) became flesh and dwelt among us..."
(Just a brief note on the name of God: Hebrew has no vowels, only consonants, in the alphabet. Therefore, when the prophets of the Old Testament wrote down God's name for future generations, they could only give us the consonants, not the vowel sounds that go with them. This, plus the fact that the Jews believed the name was too holy to speak aloud, resulted in the true pronunciation being lost. The two traditional pronunciations are wrong because the consonants are wrong: Hebrew has no J or W, so Jehovah and Yahweh are impossible pronunciations. {Lacking the real pronunciation, there is really nothing wrong with using Jehovah or Yahweh, as long as we understand they are not correct. For that matter, the English name Jesus bears no resemblance to the correct pronunciation either, but our pronunciation has never diminished the power of His name!} The original consonants of the Old Testament name of God are YHVH. By the way, the name of Jesus (old Hebrew Yehoshuah, modern Hebrew Yeshua) was formed by taking those four consonants, that is, God's name, and the word for salvation, hashuah, and combining them into a single word. The YH of YHVH became Yeho, and the last two syllables of hashuah were added to it. The name Yehoshuah implied that YHVH was actually becoming salvation, rather than simply bringing it. cf. Isaiah 12:2. This once again proves that Jesus was Jehovah in human form: He became our salvation!)
Paul said that all the fulness of the Godhead dwelt bodily in Jesus. (Col. 2:9)
And Jesus' testimony of Himself:
Jesus said He was the first and the last (Rev. 22:13). But YHVH said He was the first and the last (Is. 44:6). Since there can not be two firsts and two lasts, Jesus must be the God of the Old Testament.
Jesus told the Jews, "Before Abraham was, I AM." (John 8:58-59) This was not a grammatical error. In fact, the present tense of the verb "to be" is almost never used in Hebrew or Aramaic, because it is too similar to God's Name from the Old Testament, where God told Moses, "I AM THAT I AM." The fact that Jesus actually used the verb form for "am" tells us clearly that He was claiming to be "I AM THAT I AM," the Jehovah of the Old Testament. The Jews didn't miss this significance, because they immediately picked up stones to stone Him.
When Phillip asked to see the Father, Jesus said to him: "Have I been with you all this time, Phillip, and you still don't know Me? He who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say then, 'Show us the Father?'" (John 14:8-9)
Jesus said that He had ALL power in heaven and earth. (Mt. 28:18) If He were not the one God, that would have meant that God was now without any power whatsoever, since Jesus had it all. And if a being had no power at all, He couldn't really be God, could he? So Jesus had to be God.
For more information, we recommend the following:
God in Christ Jesus, by John Paterson, available from Word Aflame Press, 8855 Dunn Road, Hazelwood, MO 63042. Also available from the same source:
After The Way Called Heresy, by Thomas Weisser.
Is Jesus in the Godhead, or is the Godhead in Jesus?, by Gordon Magee.
Brother Carey
(Rev. William H. Carey)
|
|
|
|
|
|
JOHN 14:17. Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him; but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you; and shall be in you.
"If man has left you feeling oppressed about who you are...then here's the place for you because we believe that the truth shall set you free! God doesn't make mistakes and he loves you just the way you are!"
|
|
|
|
I Timothy 1:12 And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry.
|
|
|
|
Same-Sex Marriage in Scripture
In this paper, we will attempt to determine if there is biblical precedent for same-sex marriages. In the Apostolic Church, we are aware that we must have a minimum of two biblical witnesses in order to teach something. Therefore, we will need to find two examples of same-sex marriage in the Bible in order to declare such marriages valid today.
Prior to searching for these two witnesses, it is necessary to lay some groundwork, starting with the definition of the word "marriage." The modern concept of marriage is this: a couple with a government-issued license, making vows before a minister, priest, rabbi, other clergyman, or a justice of the peace. Such a concept of marriage is modern, and does not match the biblical concept of marriage.
Perhaps the most important difference between biblical marriage and its modern day counterpart is that marriage in biblical times was not regulated by the government. There was no such thing as a marriage license, nor did the government care who married whom, or how many wives a man had.
The early concept of marriage was this: two people made a covenant with each other. Regardless of whether they did this of their own accord, or through a matchmaker, or at the insistence of their families, the marriage began with the agreement or covenant between the two. Some time afterward, there would be a feast for public recognition of the agreement, and a contract would be signed by both parties, putting in writing what they had already promised to each other. After this was done, and only then, would the couple live together and be intimate with each other. Prior to the signing of the covenant, the couple was spoken of as betrothed or engaged, but this had a meaning different from today's concept of betrothal or engagement. Their betrothal was as morally binding as the marriage itself, and could only be broken by divorce, even though no contract had been signed and no sexual activity had occurred.
An example of this can be seen in Matthew 1:19, with Joseph and Mary. At this point in their relationship, they were betrothed. They had not moved in together, had not signed a contract, had not had a marriage feast, and had not had sexual contact. All they had was the agreement they had made with each other, their covenant. But when Joseph discovered that Mary was pregnant, he thought she had been unfaithful, and decided not to marry her. He could have had her stoned to death for committing adultery, but chose instead to divorce her privately. The King James Version says "put her away." The Greek word is apolysai, and it means divorce. Even though they had none of the things that would make a modern marriage binding, they were considered married, simply on the basis of their agreement to each other! So for a biblical definition of marriage we have simply one thing: a covenant. When two people make an agreement between themselves that they will live their lives together as a couple and be faithful to each other, then, biblically, they are married. They may choose to sign a contract, they may choose to have a ceremony and reception, they may choose any other forms of public recognition, but none of those are required biblically for the marriage to be binding.
One final point before we search scripture for examples of same-sex marriage: We'll be using primarily the King James Version of scripture, with corrections to translation errors provided by the Hebrew and Greek text. It needs to be understood by the reader that words which appear in italics in the King James Version are not found in the Hebrew or Greek text, but were added by the translators. Sometimes those added words help clarify a concept, and adding an occasional article (a, an, the) or preposition is a valid part of translation. Literal word-for-word translation is usually impossible and rarely desirable. For example, let us take the Hebrew word b'mish'k'n'oteicha. Even though it is only one word in Hebrew, it is impossible to translate it into English with less than three words. It means in thy tabernacles. But sometimes the added words of the translators do us a disservice. Sometimes they completely change the meaning (which is usually what they intended to do.) For example, Colossians 1:19. Notice in the King James Version that the word Father is in italics. Other translations may have the word God where the King James has Father. But the Greek text has neither. The verse in Greek says For all fullness was pleased to dwell in Him. (Compare Col. 2:9) By inserting Father or God, the translators changed the meaning of what Paul wrote. Not only is that not helpful, it's sinful! (Rev. 22:18-19)
In I Samuel chapter 18, David and Jonathan met for the first time. It was love at first sight. Verse 1 tells us that the soul of Jonathan was knit, or intertwined, with the soul of David. Lest we think of this simply as something spiritual, let us look at the meaning of soul. There is an erroneous conception that the soul is similar to, or synonymous with, the spirit. Some preachers try to turn us into a sort of trinity, claiming that we are made up of three parts, that is, body, soul and spirit. But the scripture does not say this. We know from Genesis 2:7 that God formed our bodies out of the dust of the earth. It then says in the same verse that He breathed into our nostrils the breath of life, i.e., spirit (in Hebrew, Greek and some other languages, the word for wind and spirit are the same), and man became a living soul. So the formula isn't
BODY + SOUL + SPIRIT = MAN,
but rather,
BODY + SPIRIT = SOUL.
Therefore when the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, it was not simply a spiritual thing; it was physical as well. Jonathan loved David with body and spirit.
I Samuel 18:3-4 tell us that Jonathan and David made a covenant, and that, to seal the covenant, Jonathan took off all the things he was wearing and gave them to David. The things he took off tell us a lot about the covenant itself. He took off his sword and bow and gave them to David, signifying that he intended to protect David. But it went further than that. By taking off all his clothes, he signified a much deeper and more intense relationship. Had this not been the start of a physical, sexual relationship, Jonathan's actions would have been considered bizarre indeed, by the standards of their day, or ours. From that day, David moved in with Jonathan (verse 2) and did not live at home with his parents anymore, further indicative of the type of covenant they had made. (In biblical times, a man generally did not leave his parents¡¦ home until he married, and sometimes not even then.)
At this point, we need to clarify a few points before going on. First, we need to understand that today's concept of monogamy was not considered the norm in biblical days. Especially among royalty, polygamy was considered essential in order to produce a large number of heirs, which would ensure that the throne would remain in the same family. Jonathan was the eldest son of the king, and had a responsibility to produce at least one heir to the throne. He did so. David had been anointed to be king by the prophet Samuel. This placed the obligation of producing an heir upon him as well. King Saul was well aware that David was anointed by Samuel, and he warned his son that as long as David lived, Jonathan would never be king. This is why the relationship between the two young men bothered Saul so much. The very reason he had fathered Jonathan was so that his son would succeed him as king, and now Jonathan was thwarting that purpose by becoming involved with the very man who threatened that royal succession!
Saul sought a way to kill David. Because David was anointed, and was also very popular, it would be inadvisable for Saul to attempt to kill him outright. He preferred that the Philistines do it for him. He reasoned that if he got David to marry his daughter Merab, she would cause him enough distraction that he would fall to his enemies. But when the time came for David and Merab to make a covenant, Saul married her off to someone else instead. (David had no objection to the marriage one way or the other, so most likely Merab herself objected.) Then Saul got wind of the fact that another of his daughters, Michal, loved David. He decided to let her marry David, again for the sole purpose of causing him to fall to his enemies. (See I Sam. 18:17,21)
When Saul told David that he would give him Michal, he went on to tell David that once he married her, he would be the king's son-in-law "in one of the twain." (Verse 21 - King James Version) That phrase is very important. Let's put it into modern English first: "through one of the two." This suggests that he would be Saul's son-in-law through Michal instead of Merab. But notice that the words one of are in italics. That means they are not found in the Hebrew text. In fact, they are not even hinted at in the Hebrew text. Adding them completely changed the meaning of the verse. What Saul actually told David was that once he married Michal, he would be the king's son-in-law through two (or both). That is, he would be the king's son-in-law twice, through two of Saul's children. With which of Saul's children did David have a covenant? Only three of Saul's children are mentioned in this chapter. David had no covenant with Merab, who married someone else. He was about to make a covenant with Michal. The only other child of Saul with whom David had a covenant was Jonathan. Verse 21 proves that the covenant was a marriage covenant and that Saul recognized (but didn't necessarily approve of) the marriage.
Note the following verses which the King James and other English Bibles have mistranslated to hide the marriage of David and Jonathan:
I Samuel 20:30 -- "Then Saul's anger burned toward Jonathan, and he said to him, Thou son of the perversion of rebelliousness! Don't I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion and the confusion of thy mother's *****?" (see note)
confusion - The word confusion has a somewhat different meaning here than the one we usually use. Rather than meaning "being confused," it refers instead to being undone or frustrated in purpose. What Saul was saying was that by choosing David, Jonathan was a rebellious son who was confounding his own future, as well as the very reason that Saul and Jonathan's mother had conceived him, that is, to ascend to the throne of Israel when his father died. Saul expounded on this in verse 31, and then offered to "remedy" the situation by having David killed. Saul's annoyance with his son's choice had nothing to do with David's gender, but only reflected the fact that as long as David was alive, Jonathan would never be king of Israel.
***** There is no polite English word for the phrase King Saul used. He used a graphic and vulgar term for the female genitalia.
I Samuel 20:41 -- "As soon as the boy was gone, David arose from the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed three times. They kissed each other, and wept together, until David experienced an erection." (Hebrew: higdil "became large")
In II Samuel, 1:26, David expressed his love for the late Jonathan. Please understand that when David referred to the love of women, the only possible love he could be referring to was sexual love. It was considered highly improper for a man to have any type of platonic friendship with a woman. Men and women usually didn't even speak to each other in public. Even a husband and wife would not speak to each other in the street. (The Chassidic Jews still observe this custom.) Since David would not have had any platonic relationships with women, he could only have been referring to sexual interaction. This is a further indication of the sexual nature of his relationship with Jonathan, since it would not make sense to compare a platonic relationship with a man to a sexual relationship with a woman. David clearly preferred the love of Jonathan. Nowhere in scripture will you find David expressing such love for a woman. Although he married more than once, and fathered children, he never expressed such love for any of his wives.
We now have one witness of same-sex marriage. Let's find another:
In Daniel 1:3, we meet Ashpenaz, chief of the Babylonian eunuchs. He was put in charge of the new eunuchs brought in from Judah, the princes and chief young men who had been castrated in fulfillment of prophecy (II Kings 20:18; Isaiah 39:7). Among these were Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. All four were eunuchs.
Before going on, we need to discuss the concept of eunuchs and the effect of castration. Were eunuchs capable of sexual function? There is no set answer to the question. It depends upon when they were castrated. Boys castrated before puberty, as was sometimes done to keep their singing voices from changing, would not develop sexually and would have no sexual function. They would still have normal desire for physical and emotional closeness, but could not function sexually. Those castrated after puberty would be sterile, but would most likely retain some sexual function and desire. This can be seen in the case of cats. A male kitten castrated before puberty does not develop sexually, and usually will not display any of the behaviors of adult male cats, such as spraying and mounting other cats. Male cats castrated after puberty will usually continue to spray and to mount other cats, but will be sterile.
What about the young men of Judah? The prophecy spoke of the young men of Judah, not boys. The fact that Daniel and the others were able to speak for themselves and stand up for themselves indicates they were at least in their teens. The fact that they stood up for their religion suggests that they were at least of age for Bar Mitzvah, signifying spiritual adulthood, generally age thirteen. So it seems pretty evident that these young men were castrated after, or at least during, puberty, and would therefore retain some sexual function. We have no information from scripture about the personal lives of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. But scripture does give us some clues as to Daniel's personal life.
In Daniel 1:9, we find that a certain relationship existed between Daniel and Ashpenaz (who was also a eunuch). To determine the exact nature of that relationship, we'll need to dig a little deeper than the English translation, which actually tells us very little. The King James speaks of favor and tender love. The Hebrew words are (chesed v'rachamim). Let's look at chesed first. Chesed has more than one possible translation. The most common is mercy. It is also translated as grace. The scriptures which say His mercy endureth forever use a form of the word chesed.
What about rachamim? (The v' as seen above - v'rachamim - is the Hebrew word for and, which cannot stand alone, but is attached to the word which follows it.) Rachamim also has more than one meaning. In addition, it is plural, which has more than one connotation in Hebrew. Let's deal with that aspect first, before determining the meaning. In Hebrew, using the plural is a way of emphasizing greatness or importance. Indeed, there are some Hebrew nouns which have no singular form, and are always used in the plural. Heaven, water, face: these are words which have no singular form in Hebrew, but are always plural. In addition, God, when referring to the true God, is usually plural in Hebrew, in order to emphasize His greatness. Rachamim is plural, not because there is more than one, but because of its greatness, intensity or depth.
So what does it mean? There are two common meanings for the word rachamim. One is similar to the meaning of chesed, that is, mercy or grace. The other is love. (More on that in a moment.) How would a reader determine which meaning is intended? From context. Since the word chesed was also used, for rachamim to have the meaning of mercy would be redundant. It being plural would be even more redundant and would constitute a very poorly constructed and confusing sentence. Therefore, rachamim would have to have its alternative meaning, love. But what kind of love? English is poor in that we only have one word for love, and must use other words to differentiate between types of love. The love between spouses is not the same as love between parents and children. The love between parents and children is not the same as love between friends. And yet, we have just the one word, love. Some languages, including Hebrew and Greek have more than one word for love. For example. the passage in John 21 where Jesus kept asking Peter "Do you love me?" is much more significant if read in Greek: Peter kept answering Jesus with the wrong word for love, embarrassed by the fact that Jesus was using Greek's most powerful word for love. Peter was basically answering, "Yes, I like you!"
Words in Hebrew are formed from root words, usually made up of three letters. Any words having those three letters in that order would have similar meanings. For example, most people are familiar with the word shalom, which means peace or welfare. The root letters are sh-l-m (sh is a single letter in the Hebrew alphabet). Any word with sh-l-m, in that order, regardless of other consonants or vowels added, would have a related meaning. The root letters of rachamim are (r-ch-m) (the final im of rachamim make it plural, and are not part of the root). There are a number Hebrew words which share these root letters, including one organ of reproduction. This fact indicates that when rachamim is used to mean love, it has a definite physical, sexual aspect to it.
At this point, I would like the reader to notice who was responsible for Daniel and Ashpenaz having a sexual relationship. According to verse 9, it was God who put them together in their relationship. Now God has no vested interest in people committing fornication, and the fact that rachamim means sexual love, and not just sexual activity, indicates to us that this was meant to be a life-long relationship between the two. And what do we call a life-long committed sexual relationship between two people? Marriage. No other romantic interest or sexual partner or marriage was ever mentioned in connection with Daniel in the Bible. Ashpenaz was the only one mentioned.
We have two examples of same-sex marriages from scripture. But what rules should govern these marriages? It is true that scripture does not give us rules specifically governing same-sex marriages. Does that mean we are free to make our own? No. Notice again in I Samuel 18 that King Saul didn't seem to draw any distinction between David's marriage to Jonathan and his impending marriage to Michal. Although Saul didn't approve of the marriage between the two men, he still recognized it as a marriage, and not just two men living together. Therefore it seems evident that the instructions given in the Bible for opposite-sex marriages were also meant to be applied to same-sex marriages.
„¶2000 Lighthouse Ministries, Ferndale, MI 48220
revised 2002 for internet use
For information on our Evangelistic Outreach Ministries and Ministerial Training/Credentialing E-mail Us at AIM4JESUS@prodigy.net or Arm_Jesus@yahoo.com Bible Training offered thru Pentecostal Bible Institute. Publications thru Lighthouse Publications. All are divisions are under Apostolic Restoration Mission.
|
|
 |
|
YOU CAN SEE JESUS IN EVERY SUNSET
|
|
|
|
|
|
