Biblical Unitarian Double Standards

Certain non-Trinitarian churches and organizations share many doctrines in common with 4Winds Fellowships, especially those who call their non-Trinitarian theology “Biblical Unitarianism.”[1] However, on the most important doctrine of all – who is Jesus Christ – there is a significant difference. Some Biblical Unitarian authors give the outward appearance of objective scholarship in their treatment of the origin of the so-called “Logos Doctrine” (preexistence of Christ). But in reality, the method of historical research is subjective, selective, and uses double standards. These authors do not typically present their own unbiased research into the original source material from the earliest Christian and Jewish writings. Instead, they support their views with the opinions and excerpted quotations from liberal Unitarian scholars. This makes it appear that their own views are those of the well-known scholars they cite, giving their works a façade of scholarly authority.[2] But the weight of their historical argument rests on the reputations of the scholars whose opinions they selectively quote. The views which those liberal Unitarian scholars espoused, especially regarding the origin of the doctrine of a pre-human existence of Christ (Logos doctrine), are concealed through omission.

In their books against Trinitarianism, Anthony Buzzard[3] and Kegan Chandler[4] selectively quote these scholars in an attempt to show that the doctrine of the pre-human existence of Christ was allegedly the product of syncretism with Jewish mysticism and Greek philosophy rather than being divine revelation from God. But both authors fail to inform their readers that the scholars they are citing for support plainly acknowledged that preexistence (the “Logos doctrine”) is clearly taught in the New Testament itself. They maintained their attack on preexistence and the Logos doctrine by claiming that the New Testament itself is significantly corrupted. The opinions and conclusions of the scholars being quoted by Mr. Buzzard and Mr. Chandler were based on assumptions that no Bible-believing Christian could possibly accept – the denial that the New Testament was “God-breathed” and error-free.

To illustrate the double standard used by these authors, consider two of the liberal Unitarian scholarly sources which were repeatedly quoted to support the assertion that the Logos doctrine of preexistence is a corruption. These well-known scholarly sources were Adolf Von Harnack and Levi L. Paine. Both of these Unitarian scholars maintained their claims about the Logos doctrine (preexistence) by denying that certain New Testament books (which teach the pre-human existence of Christ) were actually written by Jesus’ Apostles, that some New Testament books were embellished with foreign and fabricated material by later editors, and that some of the Apostles themselves (Paul and John) were heavily influenced by earlier Jewish apocalyptic literature and/or Greek philosophy. Thus, in their scholarly opinions, the New Testament itself is the product of religious and philosophical syncretism. Here are a few examples:

Adolf Von Harnack:

“An accurate examination of the eschatological sayings of Jesus in the synoptists[5] shows that much foreign matter is mixed with them (see Weiffenback, Der Wiederkunftsgedanke Jesu, 1875). That the tradition here is very uncertain, because influenced by the Jewish Apocalyptic, …”[6]

“Some of the Jewish Apocalyptists[7] had already attributed pre-existence to the expected Messiah, as to other precious things in the Old Testament history and worship, and, without any thought of denying his human nature, placed him as already existing before his appearing in a series of angelic beings. … The supposed aim was, in a kind of real existence, placed, as first cause, before the means which were destined to realize it on earth. Some of the first confessors of the Gospel [the disciples], though not all the writers of the New Testament, in accordance with the same method, went beyond the declarations which Jesus himself had made about his person, and endeavoured to conceive its value and absolute significance abstractly and speculatively. The religious convictions: (1) That the founding of the Kingdom of God on earth, and the mission of Jesus as the perfect mediator, were from eternity based on God’s plan of Salvation, as his main purpose; (2) that the exalted Christ was called into a position of Godlike Sovereignty belonging to him of right; (3) that God himself was manifested in Jesus, and that he therefore surpasses all mediators of the Old Testament, nay, even all angelic powers, – these convictions with some took the form that Jesus preexisted, and that in him has appeared and taken flesh a heavenly being fashioned like God, who is older than the world, nay, its creative principle. The conceptions of the old Teachers, Paul, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apocalypse, and author of the first Epistle of Peter, the fourth Evangelist, differ in many ways when they attempt to define these convictions more closely. The latter [John] is the only one who has recognized with perfect clearness that the premundane [pre-human] Christ must be assumed to be θεὸς ὢν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν [God was in the beginning with the God] so as not to endanger by this speculation the contents and significance of the revelation of God which was given in Christ.”[8]

“But it certainly could not fail to be of importance for the result that already many of the earliest Christian writers, and therefore even Paul, perceived in Jesus a spiritual being come down from heaven (πνεῦμα)[9] who was ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ [in the form of God][10] and whose real act of love consisted in his very descent.”[11]

“But in the majority of cases, it is absolutely impossible to account subsequently for the causes of such productions, because their formation is subject to no law accessible to the understanding.[12] It is therefore inadmissible to regard as proved the reality of what is recorded and believed to be fact,[13] when motive and interest which led to its acceptance can no longer be ascertained.”[14]

Harnack attributed the origin of the doctrine of Messiah’s pre-human existence first to Jewish apocalyptic writers before the Christian era and then to the Apostles themselves who wrote the New Testament after having been influenced by these more ancient Jewish writings. Harnack began with the unproven presupposition that the pre-human existence of Messiah is a false and fabricated doctrine, and then attempted to explain how this alleged false idea found its way into the pages of the New Testament. According to Harnack, the minds of the biblical writers themselves were infected with unbiblical Jewish mysticism. This allegedly influenced both John and Paul, and “the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” and “the author of the first Epistle of Peter” and the “Apocalypse.” Note that such descriptive terminology about these books shows that Harnack did not attribute Hebrews, 1 Peter, and Revelation to the Apostles, and thus did not accept them as inspired Scripture.

Both Mr. Buzzard and Mr. Chandler also supported their historical claims by selectively quoting the late Unitarian scholar, Levi L. Paine.[15] Like Harnack, Paine believed that most of the books of the New Testament contain false and fabricated material. However, these scholars differed somewhat on the question of the source of corruption. While Harnack tended to blame the primary source of alleged corruption on influence from Jewish mysticism, Paine attributed the so-called “Logos doctrine” to Greek Platonic philosophy and Gnosticism.

Levi L. Paine:

“With this critical explanation, we take the New Testament writings as we find them, and ask what evidence they give us on the question of the evolution of the dogma of the Trinity. The earliest stratum of this evolution is contained in the Book of Acts, and in the Synoptic gospels, with the exception of the opening chapters of Matthew and of Luke, which are later additions, as we shall see further on. The doctrine of Christ in this first stratum is distinctly that of Messiahship. Jesus is a man of God, sent of God to declare his gospel and exhort men to prepare for the kingdom of heaven which is at hand. There is no assertion of Christ’s divinity, or of his preexistence and incarnation, or even of his miraculous birth. Jesus is everywhere described as the son of Joseph and Mary. The Book of Acts is here of primary importance. Although it evidently contains quite a large element of legend, it is equally evident that many of its accounts belong to the earliest apostolic traditions.”[16]

“The second stratum of evolution in the New Testament is found in the opening chapters of Matthew and Luke. These chapters bear on their very face the plain marks of forming a later addition. In the first place, they are historically inconsistent with the rest of the gospels. They represent Jesus as born in Bethlehem, while all the other portions, not only of Matthew and Luke, but also of the entire New Testament, make no allusion to Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus, and speak of him everywhere as of Nazareth, implying that he was born there. … With the purpose of harmonizing a new legendary tradition that has grown up around Christ’s birth and infancy with the older genealogy, this rude alteration of the text is resorted to.”[17]

“The third stratum of trinitarian evolution is marked by the intrusion of Greek philosophical thought into the Jewish Palestinian. The first two strata belong to Palestinian Aramaic soil, but the third stratum, which is introduced by the Epistles of Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews, is of Alexandrian Greek origin and character. Paul was a Jew, and trained in Jewish schools; but he also had a Greek education, and his epistles bear plain marks of his acquaintance with Greek philosophic literature. It is an interesting question whether he had actually read the writings of the Alexandrian Jewish Philo. This cannot be conclusively proved, but there are some remarkable coincidences of thought and expression between the two writers. At all events, it must be conceded that Paul was at home in the atmosphere of Philonic thought, and we may be quite sure that he owed the real starting point of his new theological departure indirectly if not directly to Philo himself for his doctrine of Christ as a μεσίτης (mediator) between God and men, with all its metaphysical results, is an integral feature of the Philonic Logos doctrine. The very term μεσίτης [Mediator], which first appears in Paul among Christian writers, was used by Philo again and again. The Epistle to the Hebrews gives equally clear evidence of Alexandrian and Philonic relationship. It is a most remarkable and significant fact that μεσίτης in the special sense of a metaphysical go-between or mediator between God and mankind, is found only in Philo, Paul, and the Epistle to the Hebrews. The reason why it was not employed in later Christian writers was that λόγος [Logos – Word] took its place. The mediation theory of Paul was retained, but it assumed the form of the Logos doctrine. The μεσίτης doctrine of Paul and the λόγος doctrine of Justin Martyr, as we shall see, have one essentially common source, viz., the Greek Platonic philosophy.”[18]

Paine then attributed the Gospel of John to Gnosticism.

“The fourth Gospel is mystical, with a spice of Neo-Platonism, reminding one of Philo. Justin is speculative, with an emanation element which has a Stoic strain. His distinction between the immanent and the personalized Logos is wanting in the fourth Gospel. Behind both is the shadow of Gnosticism. But the fourth Gospel gives the clearest signs of Gnostic influence. Its peculiar vocabulary is from Gnostic sources.”[19]

These examples are the tip of the ice-burg regarding the kind of Bible-denying scholarship that is used by Biblical Unitarians to provide the historical foundation for claiming that the pre-human existence of the Son of God is not revelation from God but originated from syncretism with Jewish mystics, Philo, Plato, and Gnosticism. It is evident in reading the works of Harnack and Paine that their starting axiom was that Jesus was nothing more than an ordinary man, the biological son of Joseph and Mary. They believed that the virgin birth story in Matthew and Luke was an elaborate fabrication, along with Paul’s “one Mediator” doctrine, John’s “Logos” doctrine, and other portions of the New Testament. Because this was their starting axiom, and not the inspiration of the Scriptures, they attempted to explain away the New Testament evidence in conformity with their own personal “faith” (or lack thereof). Given that Harnack and Paine agreed that the pre-human origin and activity of God’s Son is clearly taught in several New Testament passages, they sought to explain away this evidence by claiming that the New Testament and even the Biblical writers themselves were corrupted by Jewish mysticism and Greek philosophy. Without their overt denial of the inspiration and accuracy of Scripture as their starting axiom, there is absolutely no basis for their arguments of corruption and syncretism! Liberal Unitarianism’s foundation is based upon, and absolutely demands, the denial of the inspiration of the New Testament. They must claim this because as scholars, they interpreted the preexistence New Testament passages according to the norms of Greek grammar and sound hermeneutics which absolutely require preexistence. Their reasoning can be reduced to the following syllogism:

1. Jesus was an ordinary Jewish man who had no supernatural origin or pre-human existence.
2. The New Testament, particularly Paul and John, undeniably teach a pre-human existence.
3. Therefore, all sections of the New Testament which teach a virgin birth and preexistence are corruptions.

However, unlike the above liberal Unitarian scholars they selectively quoted, Biblical Unitarians A. Buzzard and K. Chandler accept the inspiration of the New Testament including the virgin birth. But this forces them into a serious predicament. Since “Biblical” Unitarians cannot overtly challenge the authority of the New Testament, they instead resort to abandoning the norms of sound interpretive principles (hermeneutics) in order to find creative ways to explain away passages that teach the pre-human existence of Christ. Biblical Unitarianism is only partly “biblical.” It is “biblical” in the sense that it professes the authority of the New Testament. It is far from “biblical” in how it handles certain passages, using highly subjective, speculative, and forced interpretations, sometimes violating the norms and rules of Greek grammar. No version of Unitarianism (which denies the pre-human existence of Christ) can be reconciled with both the doctrine of the full inspiration of Scripture and the well-established principles of sound hermeneutics in interpreting Scripture.

Does the New Testament actually contain an Evolution in Theology?

Yes! Harnack and Paine were correct that Christian theology evolved during the ministries of Peter, Paul, and John (between AD 30 and AD 67), and that this evolution is observable within the pages of the New Testament. (This is something glaringly missing in A. Buzzard’s and K. Chandler’s books, and in the apologetics of Biblical Unitarians). The theology in Paul’s later epistles (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Hebrews, Timothy) and in all of John’s works (which were written after the destruction of Jerusalem in support of Paul) is more mature and nuanced than that of the earliest New Testament books. But there are no contradictions, only further detailed explanations and deeper insight and reflection which was given to them by progressive revelation. The real question is not whether Christology evolved between Matthew 1 and Revelation 22. It clearly did, significantly. The question is, “What was the source of this evolution?” Was it the intrusion of Jewish mysticism and Greek philosophy as claimed by liberal Unitarian scholars? Or was it further progressive revelation and insight given to the Apostles by the Breath of Truth?

It should not come as a surprise that the Apostles at Pentecost had only a rudimentary understanding and continued to be taught by the Breath of Truth after Jesus’ ascension. This is precisely what Jesus told them would occur just before His death.

John 16:12-15 LGV 12 “I still have much to tell you, but you are powerless to carry it right now. 13 But when that one should come, the Breath of Truth, it will lead you into all the truth, for it will not speak from self, but will speak whatever it hears, and it will inform you [about] what is coming. 14 That one will glorify Me because it will receive out from Me and will relay-message to you. 15 Everything, whatever the Father has, is Mine. Therefore I said [that] it will receive out from Me and will relay-message to you.”[20]

In Acts we see this actually playing out with the gradual increase in understanding and maturing of the Apostles as the holy Breath of God continued their education.[21] Peter’s vision of the sheet let down from heaven in Acts 10 and the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 are both good examples of the evolution of theology and maturing of understanding led by the Breath of Truth. Consequently, we should expect that the later books of the New Testament would reflect a much more nuanced and mature understanding than the earliest books.

Anthony Buzzard’s and Kegan Chandler’s foundational scholarly authorities, as their starting presupposition, absolutely denied the reality of the Son’s pre-human origin as described in Proverbs 8, throughout John’s Gospel, and Colossians 1, His existence in former times and interaction with mankind in establishing the covenants, His inherent divinity as the only-begotten of the Father prior to becoming flesh, and His complete transformation to full humanity. Because of their false presuppositions, these men mistook the undeniable and genuine learning and maturing of the Apostles themselves (as led by the Breath of Truth) for a gradual corruption from external influences – Jewish apocalyptic literature and Greek philosophy.

While scholars like Harnack and Paine claimed that the New Testament itself was corrupted by Jewish apocalyptic and Greek philosophy, Mr. Buzzard and Mr. Chandler (as apologists for a more sanitized form of Unitarianism – “Biblical Unitarianism”) shift the concept of evolving theology away from the New Testament itself and place it at the feet of the next generation of Christian writers, especially the one considered the first Christian apologist, Justin Martyr. Justin is accused of being corrupted by Greek philosophy in his works defending Christianity to pagan Greek and Roman audiences. It is true that in his works addressed to pagans he sometimes used language that was familiar to his readers who were steeped in Greek philosophy. But in his Dialogue with Trypho (a Jew) he proved both that Jesus preexisted as the Angel of the Lord and that He was “this crucified Man” taking all of his evidence from the Old Testament Scriptures, nothing from Greek philosophy. Justin’s use of Greek concepts when addressing pagan Greeks and Romans does not equate to his alleged inability to distinguish apostolic doctrine from Greek philosophy. Rather, it shows that Justin was attempting to convey Biblical truths using concepts and language that his audience could easily comprehend in their own world-view.

Paul himself did precisely the same thing in his address to the Greeks at the Athens in Acts 17:16-31. In that address, Paul appealed to certain truths contained in Greek philosophy. First, in verse 23 he claimed to preach to them the one they called “the Unknown God.” Where did they get this idea? It was in part from Plato who claimed that there was one ultimate sovereign God who is the source of all the other lesser gods and everything that exists, who is far superior to all of the Greek and Roman gods, the God who cannot be seen with the eyes but can only be contemplated through the mind. Gaining knowledge of this supreme God was the ultimate goal of Plato’s philosophy.[22] Thus, by claiming to preach to them “the Unknown God” of Plato, Paul was implicitly agreeing with this particular aspect of Plato’s philosophy.

Second, notice in verse 28 Paul quoted the Greek philosopher, Aratus, “For we are also His offspring.” By quoting this statement Paul showed commonality between a certain concept of Greek philosophy and Christianity. His hearers were well aware of the book Paul was quoting. Here is the section of Aratus’ book from which Paul quoted with his quote underlined.

“From Zeus let us begin; him do we mortals never leave unnamed; full of Zeus are all the streets and all the market-places of men; full is the sea and the havens thereof; always we all have need of Zeus. For we are also his offspring; and he in his kindness unto men giveth favourable signs and wakeneth the people to work, reminding them of livelihood. He tells what time the soil is best for the labour of the ox and for the mattock, and what time the seasons are favourable both for the planting of trees and for casting all manner of seeds. For himself it was who set the signs in heaven, and marked out the constellations, and for the year devised what stars chiefly should give to men right signs of the seasons, to the end that all things might grow unfailingly. Wherefore him do men ever worship first and last.[23] Hail, O Father, mighty marvel, mighty blessing unto men. Hail to thee and to the Elder Race! Hail, ye Muses, right kindly, every one! But for me, too, in answer to my prayer direct all my lay, even as is meet, to tell the stars.”^[24]

Paul cannot be accused of preaching Plato’s philosophy or the god Zeus. Paul was not corrupted by Greek philosophy. He was doing exactly what he claimed to do as an effective evangelistic tool, meeting people where they are, using language familiar to them, and establishing points of commonality in order to inform them about the one true God.

1 Cor. 9:19-23 (NKJV) 19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.

Paul’s address to the philosophers at Athens is a perfect example of his doing just this, meeting the Greek philosophers on their own ground, approaching them first by agreeing with what the Greek philosophers got right about God, but then showing them the unvarnished and unpolluted truth from God’s own direct revelation. In Romans 1 Paul stated plainly that God has shown Himself to the pagans, “even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,” and that they “knew God.”[25] Thus, even Greek philosophy contains some elements of truth and some divine revelation (probably plagiarized from Moses), albeit polluted with the theories of men. Yet for Harnack, Paine, and many other liberal Unitarian scholars, the above Scriptures prove that Paul was himself corrupted by Greek philosophy. However, objective, Bible-believing Christians see Paul merely employing the tools available to him to preach Jesus Christ in a foreign Greek culture and understandable to the Greek way of thinking. Paul’s own education in Jewish thought and his familiarity with Greek thought made him the best tool of Jesus Christ to bridge the cultural gap and evangelize the Gentiles.

Justin Martyr (and to a lesser extent other early witnesses) has become the whipping boy for Biblical Unitarian authors. They have shifted the Greek philosophical syncretism which allegedly led to the “Logos doctrine” away from the New Testament and the Apostles themselves and laid it at the feet of Justin the martyr (2nd cent). This allows them to maintain a facade of biblical inerrancy. But Justin’s works show the same methods displayed by Paul at Athens. To the Jews Justin became as a Jew, proving to Trypho the Jew the origin and pre-human existence of the Son and that Jesus is the Messiah exclusively from Moses, the Psalms, and the Prophets![26] But to the Greeks Justin became as a Greek, using language and ideas familiar to them in order to explain the practice of Christians.[27] This does not imply that Justin was corrupted by Greek philosophy or could not differentiate between pure apostolic Christianity and Greek philosophy any more than Paul’s doing the same at Athens.

Biblical Unitarians often use the earliest Christian writers (including Justin) as props when it suits them, claiming that they were “Unitarians” because they believed that the Father alone was the one eternal God, and that Jesus was the Son of God. Yet when the same ancient Christian writers are used to show that they uniformly also believed in preexistence, that the Son was begotten out of God as “the Beginning,” and was both “Wisdom” of Proverbs 8 and “Word” of John’s prologue, these same earliest witnesses and martyrs for Christ are painted as heretics. This is done to poison the well of the earliest post-apostolic witnesses when it comes to discussion of preexistence within Biblical Unitarianism. Not only do Biblical Unitarians use a double standard regarding their scholarly sources but they do the same regarding the earliest Christian apologists.

Biblical Unitarians attempt to explain away the relevant New Testament Scriptures dealing with preexistence by mishandling the Greek text[28]. Anthony Buzzard has even provided a translation of John’s Gospel that turns John into a Unitarian by significantly changing what he actually wrote![29]

Objective Research

Part of the process in the search for truth which 4Winds Fellowships tries to follow is the 10^th BBI Principle, “Whenever possible, trace modern doctrines back to the source to see when, where, why, and how they originated.” This not about using double standards and cherry-picking in order to make our conclusions appear to be historic or providing a façade of scholarship for support. Our process is all about making sure that our conclusions really are historic and linked to the Apostles’ doctrine. It is about removing theological filters, not imposing the filters and presuppositions of past Bible-denying scholars. A true and unbiased Christian researcher needs to provide plenty of original research and ancient source material which can be verified and which logically leads to his conclusions. He will not attempt to give weight to his own arguments by cherry-picking and misrepresenting heavily biased recent scholarship or the earliest Christian writers.

The earliest Christian writings contiguous with the Apostolic age show undeniably that they believed all of the following points:

• There is one eternal God, the Father alone
• The Son was begotten out of God as “the Beginning” of Day 1
• The Son was God’s agent, through whom He created all things
• No one has ever seen God, His Son has always acted as God’s personal Agent in His name

Within a century after John’s death the earliest teachings concerning God and His Son began to evolve away from what the earliest pastors, apologists, and martyrs taught. Corruption from Greek philosophy did indeed creep in. Several new views developed and became solidified in various groups. In the end, one of these views – Trinitarianism – prevailed and became official Roman Catholic dogma contained in the creeds. Of course, modern Trinitarians and Unitarians have their handy excuses for why their views do not mesh with the united Christian testimony at the close of the apostolic age. The Trinitarian excuse is the claim that the early Christian writers were not as theologically sophisticated as later theologians who came centuries after them, that the Apostles did not pass on a clear theology to their students, implying that post-apostolic evolution of theology was a good thing. The Unitarian excuse is to dismiss the earliest evidence by poisoning the well, claiming that the earliest Christian pastors and martyrs were already heavily corrupted by Greek philosophy and should be summarily dismissed without consideration — nothing to see here.

However, the series of articles on this site, “The Evolution of God,” shows that the genuine historical record documents both the original pristine Faith, the evolution of theology away from it, and the reasons for this gradual corruption. This historical record argues strongly against Trinitarianism, Binitarianism, Unitarianism, Modalism, and Arianism. Instead, the earliest witnesses to the Apostles’ teaching unanimously present a sixth view of the Godhead as being pristine apostolic doctrine, which is what we call “Pristine Apostolic Monotheism.” This view, properly understood, is absolutely compatible with monotheism as understood by first century Judaism and is incompatible with the Greek philosophical principles of that era.

Finally, the heavily biased cafeteria-style scholarship, double standards, and subjective handling of Scripture by certain Biblical Unitarian authors gives a very bad rap to all non-Trinitarians. Biblical Unitarians are comparatively small in numbers, but their apologists on the internet seem to be the most vocal critics of Trinitarianism. This has the effect of stalling the effectiveness of all non-Trinitarians including themselves. It gives the impression that non-Trintarians are unscholarly and poor exegetes of Scripture.

Go to: The Evolution of God (Part I) Foundational Principles & Presuppositions (pdf)

---

[1] These would include Conditional Immortality and the Abrahamic inheritance of Christians.

[2] In the following examples, we do not intend to imply that the authors mentioned are being intentionally deceptive. They may not be aware that the process they are using is heavily biased and inherently self-serving. No judgement is made here as to motives, only methods.

[3] Buzzard, Anthony F. & Hunting, Charles F., The Doctrine of the Trinity, Christianity’s Self-inflicted Wound

[4] Chandler, Kegan A.,  The God of Jesus in Light of Christian Dogma

[5] Matthew, Mark, & Luke

[6] Harnack, Adolf, History of Dogma, 3^rd Edition, (Buchanan translation – 1897), Vol. I, p. 101, footnote #4

[7] The designation of Jewish Apocalyptic books include the book of Daniel the prophet plus extra-biblical books which borrowed from it and embellished, such as 1 Enoch. However, liberal scholars like Harnack did not believe the book of Daniel was actually written by Daniel during the Babylonian exile, but was composed much later. The reason they claim this is because of Daniel’s very precise prophecies concerning the kings of Persia after the exile, the fall of Persia to Alexander the Great, the division of Alexander’s kingdom among his generals, and Antiochus Epiphanies’ “abomination of desolation.” Since they do not believe in predictive prophecy, they must place the book of Daniel hundreds of years later, after these events took place. However, even this attempt to rewrite the Bible fails because Daniel predicted the first coming of Messiah, His crucifixion, the resulting destruction of Jerusalem a second time (by the Romans) which took place in AD 70. Jesus and His Apostles were familiar with the book of Daniel and quoted from it as genuinely written by Daniel long before this occurred. These scholars are in for a rude awakening when Christ returns and establishes His Kingdom, and raises the dead, and eventually judges the wicked, including them, all of which are part of Daniel’s prophecies.

[8] Harnack, Adolf, History of Dogma, Vol. I, pp. 102-104

[9] πνεῦμα – “spirit”

[10] quoting Phil. 2:6

[11] Harnack, Adolf, History of Dogma, Vol. I, pp. 105, footnote #3

[12] Here Harnack betrays either his ignorance or rejection of God’s Word. The “law” through which the Apostles understood the pre-human existence of Christ was the progressive revelation through the Breath of Truth which Jesus promised would continue their education.

[13] It is inadmissible to simply believe the New Testament in Harnack’s opinion.

[14] Harnack, Adolf, History of Dogma, Vol. I, pp. 106

[15] Paine was a Unitarian professor of Ecclesiastical History at Bangor Theological Seminary, Bangor, Maine in the late 1800s

[16] Paine, Levi L., A Critical History of the Evolution of Trinitarianism, (1900), pp. 6-7

[17] Paine, Levi L., A Critical History of the Evolution of Trinitarianism, pp. 8-9

[18] Paine, Levi L., A Critical History of the Evolution of Trinitarianism, pp. 17-19

[19] Paine, Levi L., A Critical History of the Evolution of Trinitarianism, p. 33

[20] John’s Gospel (LGV)

[21] The Jerusalem council in Acts 15 is an excellent example

[22] See Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 3-4

[23] Cf. Rev. 1:11,17; Rev. 2:8,19; Rev. 22:13

[24] Aratus, Phenomena, I

[25] Romans 1:20-21

[26] In his Dialogue with Trypho (a Jew), Justin based all of his arguments on the Old Testament Scriptures, using both the Septuagint and the Hebrew.

[27] In his works addressed to pagans, Justin used the language of philosophy and occasionally appealed to certain philosophers in order to convey certain Christian concepts in a manner that his Greek audience could understand.

[28] Anthony Buzzard ought to know that he is forcing the Greek text, since he taught theology and Biblical languages for 24 years at Atlanta Bible College, McDonough, Georgia.

[29] Bible – One God Translation See also my analysis of Buzzard’s translation of John, Logos in John’s Gospel

[30] Mark was Peter’s nephew and assistant; Luke was Paul’s companion and assistant; Jude was the brother of Jesus and James, the pastor of the Jerusalem assembly. All of the New Testament books were either written by one of the Twelve Apostles or these faithful assistants to the Twelve.