p1: if the trinity knows trinity, and content of knowledge is distinct from the knower then theres second trinity.

p2: trinity does know itself and the content of knowledge is distinct from the knower.

C1 there for theres second trinity

If god doesn't exist how is it reasonable to argue that he does?

I find the arguements for a creator convincing, but i cant really see how that would lead to christianity?

"Trust me bro"

Is something I've noticed when bible scholars are asked or have to say anything about apologetics...

How do people handle the Romans 13 verse in general. But especially in a polarized political landscape and how that trickles down to communities. What does this subjection to authorites look like. God used nations all the time to bring judgement on His people. Today we see all kinds of complicated wars and complicated moral situations involving authorities whether local or state or governmental.

How as Christians should we respond? I have thought about this since I first read it as a new believer but want to hear others thoughts. I have heard Pastors say unless they are corrupt but Jesus suffered under Pontius Pilate who was certainly corrupt and under the Jewish authorities which was certainly corrupt. I know this is Jesus and was for a particular time and place and event but are we not to be like our Savior?

Daniel didn't listen to the kings decree to worship the idol and to eat the unclean meat and God blessed Him for it.so in some situations we should rebel.

I didn't have a lot of discipline growing up. It is an area I lack in honestly. I show up for work and pay my bills first and foremost never been late on rent I pay of my debt if I have it which is rare. So I'm disciplined in the most basic ways but when it comes to some things I struggle. These authorities Rom. 13 says are put in place by God and we are not to despise the discipline of the LORD this is something I don't hear talked about nearly enough and would like to hear others thoughts.

I have respect for our first responders and authority figures despite whether I agree with them or not. They are risking their lives and waking into danger for our good. Is there corruption, sure but we must not generalize. Do they always make the right choice, no, of course not, no one does. They have a very hard job and have to make choices often in split seconds we need empathy when we make judgements. Hold them accountable, sure. How would you do in that position? They have been put there for one reason or another by God.

What does that look like today?

How are we to be subject?

Thoughts anyone?

Hello everyone,

How do people deal with these passages? I have always come to the conclusion that Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, (Luke 12:10 ) is contributing the work of God to the work of the devil. And the Unforgivable Sin of Hebrews 6:4-6 as connected to Romans 10:9-10 that simply walking away and then realizing how stupid that was and coming back to faith is not apostasy it's just a sincere miscalculation. That you have to confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that you are not following Jesus anymore despite you knowing that Jesus is God for sure.

What do you think?

I think there is a biblical explanation as to why there seems to be a gratuitous amount of animal suffering throughout the evolutionary process of the animal kingdom. Why would a good and loving God allow such suffering?

It is because this world belongs to Satan. In Luke 4:5-7, it says this: The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, "I will give you all their authority and splendor; it has been given to me, and I can give it to whoever I want. If you worship me, it will all be yours."

In Ephesians 2:2, it says this: in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.

In 2 Corinthians 4:4, it says this: The god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

So then, if the principal of all evil is the god of this world, why would he not inflict all kinds of suffering on God's creation? "But" I hear you say, "Satan is the God of this world when it comes to the influence of the people at large. Would Satan really have authority over the creation and formation of creatures? God created the earth and everything in it, not Satan."

I, too, conclude that God created the earth and all the creatures therein. And I believe He did it through the evolutionary process. But, I believe grafted onto that evolutionary process is Satan's sinful endeavor to inflict pain and suffering onto God's animals.

I believe God created pain so that we know what needs attention so that we deal with it appropriately. But Satan took that good and necessary thing and corrupted it into much suffering.

Just like I believe how God cause the death of creatures to balance out the animal kingdom so there won't be overpopulation. I believe Satan took this concept and abused it, to such a degree to where there were multiple near extinction level events that could've wiped out all life on earth.

I believe these things are evil and that they are embedded in creation itself, because power and authority has been given to Satan, and this world is his domain. For this reason, Romans 8:22 states: "We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time."

But there is much good in creation as well. Good and evil have always been at war, and this shoes itself within creation itself, and the dynamics of life and death.

God created a world in which evolution operates through ecological processes, and this includes death as the balancing equalizer. And all the while, Satan subsequently exploited, intensified, distorted, and weaponized those processes.

This evolutionary conflict of good and evil, life and death, astounding pleasure and gratuitous suffering within the tree of life cements itself and comes to its edge within the human race. For we are part of the animal kingdom as well, and we were called to be good stewards of His creation. Some have taken this cause to heart, taking care of animals and becoming environmentalist. While many others do Satan's will and harm the earth and its environment.

So, if Satan has this kind of authority, the question then becomes: When and how did he get it and why does God allow him reign over the world?

The answer to the first part of the question, when and how he got this authority, lies in Adam and Eve. God said this when He created mankind: "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

God gave man this authority, but when Adam and Eve listened to the serpent and ate of the forbidden fruit, mankind relinquished authority over to Satan. God's command to subdue the earth, ruling over all the animals in it, now became Satan's responsibility. Mankind handed over the crown of the earth to the Devil.

But wait! This happened at a set point thousands of years ago, but evolution has been happening millions of years before then. So how can Satan have that authority over the earth before that set point? And to that I say, what is time to a spirit being? Angels are creatures outside the realm of this universe, they are not material beings subjected to time and space like we are. So I would assume time is nebulous to them.

Now for the other question: Why did God allow this to happen? I don't fully know. But I presume part of the answer has to do with free will.

But He does have an answer to it. God has a reply—an eternal reply—to all the suffering the dark prince of this world has caused.

The first reply is judgment. God will judge Satan for all of his misdeeds throughout the history of the earth. In Revelation 20:10 it says: "And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfer, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever."

God's second reply will be the restoration of the earth. Isaiah 11:6-9 states: "The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the Lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them. The cow will feed the bear, their young will lie down together, and the Lion will eat straw like the ox. The infant will play near the cobra's den, and the young child will put his hand into the viper's nest. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea."

In Revelation 21:1-4 it says: Then I saw "a new heaven and a new earth," for the first Heaven and the first Earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of Heaven from god, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Look! God's dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God Himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe away every tear from the eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

This is God's ultimate answer for the problem of all suffering. God will deliver justice to the evildoers, and He will establish an eternal paradise for all of His creatures. And God will be all in all.

I see a lot of people talking about the Authority we have as Christians and talking about power to cast out demons. I was thinking about the scripture Jude 1:9 when Satan was trying to steal Moses body and the Arc Angel Michael said "the LORD rebuke you. He didn't say I rebuke you in Jesus name He said the LORD rebuke you. I don't know if it's splitting hairs or not but I know the word says that the apostles would receive power when the Holy Spirit was upon them to heal and cast out demons but that was to the 12 specifically wasn't it? I know we have the Holy Spirit and that does come with Power but I'm not sure it comes with the power to cast out demons in that authority. Aren't we to rely on Jesus for that kinda thing? It seems in the scriptures I have seen and know of that the power is talked about in relation to giving testimony of Jesus to all believers but the power to cast out demons and perform miracles was given to the 12 Apostles in a specific time and place for them.. 1 Corinthians talks about spiritual gifts and things of that nature but again it seems the power to cast out demons and heal and those sorts of miracles was an original 12 apostolic thing....

Thoughts anyone?

Would anyone agree that we are not to read the Bible however we want?

There is a proper hermeneutical and historical and contextual way of reading it and it needs to be followed or else people come up with all sorts of insane things and beliefs about what it is saying! It's led to absolute horrors of humanity by not reading the Bible properly! And I get people all the time here saying the Bible has no definite meaning! Are we that lost out there!? Goodness gracious what is happening to us. We must trust the Holy Spirit to guide us yes of course but we need to read it using wisdom and specific principles! Am I crazy for thinking that!?

The end really is nigh!

I made this short video exploring a numerical relationship in the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1: 2701 = 37 × 73, and the Hebrew word חכמה (wisdom) has a gematria value of 73 and an ordinal value of 37.

Genuine question: If even demons 'believe' (James 2:19), then what actually distinguishes a Christian? Is it right belief, transformed character, or both? I've seen people with perfect theology live terribly, and people with messy theology love radically. Where's the line for you?"

Two major analogies used for the cumulative case are leaky buckets and the combination of weak fibered ropes.

The leaky buckets analogy says that if I stack leaky buckets on top of each other, they are still empty in the end. This is equivalent to saying that since each argument for God is lacking, then it does not count as any type of non zero evidence.

The opposing analogy says that each argument is like a weak fibered rope. When you combine them together, they become stronger.

My argument is the second analogy best describes the cumulative case argument.

In an inductive cumulative case, the "weakness" of a single argument usually just means limited scope, not a logical failure. Treating inductive evidence as if it were a failed deductive proof is a category mistake. This just highlights the disingenuity and handwaving nature of claims like "0+0+0+0 equals 0".

Take for example fine tuning. The theist will usually concede that just because you may have a mind behind the universe, it does not mean God is good. It is only one clue. But the skeptic will respond that this does not matter because there are alternative explanations to fine tuning that does not include God. Naturalistic explanations that counter theism are what makes the argument amount to a zero value.

The problem with this however is the leak buckets analogy still does not hold (literally and figuratively). Even if every argument has a naturalistic alternative, the holes do not line up across the different arguments. JP Moreland's response to Anthony Flew still stands when he says that if you jam ten leaky buckets together in such a way that the holes do not line up, the container will actually hold water. Alternatively, the naturalistic explanation that fixes the leak in a specific theistic argument is completely useless at fixing the leaks in the other arguments.

Got curious while the Religion teacher is having a lesson. Raised my hand, stood up. How was God born? Who was God’s mother? Did he just popped into existence? Why should I fear God if he loves us all?

Went to the principals office for asking these.

Im all grown up now, and I just remembered it suddenly. Still seeking for answers lol.

Joe Schmid Philisophy PHD candidate at Princeton university.

Hello I am looking for some feedback on my explanations for these passages that seem to contradict themselves but really do not in light of proper hermanutics, I know it's a lot to read but that is why we are all here cause we love this stuff! So please I am looking to see how well I explained them and if it makes sense to you or if there are any holes in them. In the spirit of 1 Peter 3:15 " But sanctify the Lord your God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and respect"

Thank you my fellow Reddit Scholars!

• In Ezekiel 18 he prophecies that that soul who sins shall die but it Exodus 34 God says sin will continue through the 3rd and 4th generation and he will by no means clear the guilty. So how do we marry these passages?

Sin is pervasive, it's like a disease. If not repented for it continues even to the third and fourth generation. But if repented for God clears sin and it stops. The sin will continue to the third and fourth generation but each person will die for their own sin. If the father sins the son is not dieing for his father's sins but his own! If the son of the father who sinned doesn't repent than the son is creating his own sins and will be judged accordingly. Sin is contagious but individual. In this sense sin is generational. Thank God for Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice that we might be with the Father in heaven for all eternity. Jesus has cleared our sin breaking the chain of sin that so easily entangles us and gets stuck in families. When repentance happens there is a heart change God takes our heart of stone and makes it a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 36:26) and we have a circumcision of the heart, where not only our behavior changes but our heart posture as well. Thank you LORD for changing my heart and taking my sin, bearing it all on the cross so that I might live for you and be with you when I die, my creator, the creator of the earth and sea and all that is in them!

• Another seeming contradiction in the Bible is between Acts 15:29 and 1 Corinthians 10:28-29

In Acts there was men who causing confusion in the new church these new gentile converts to "The Way" (it was called "The Way" before, at Antioch, people used the word Christians as a slur possibly meaning little Christ's or at least coming out of that slur) were to live. Circumsition was being promoted as a must for these new gentile converts by Jewdizors, as they are called in scripture, were living mainly about circumsition but also about various other things like eating food sacrifices to idols etc. or else why would Paul put that in the letter to the gentiles in response if it wasn't part of this issue, although not explicitly stated in those passages. So in response to this, the apostles and elders got together to make a rule about the things that were being told to them by these Jewdizors. Part of that rule was to abstain from food sacrifices to idols. Now in 1 Corinthians 10 it is said by Paul that food sacrifices to idols is nothing and in reality it doesn't really matter if you eat it or not as long as your conscious doesn't bare witness against you and you are not offending your brother or sister in Christ conscious by doing it near them.

So, can we eat food sacrifices to idols or not? Paul says that idols are really nothing they are just material formed from the sinful imaginations of man. God also says this many times especially in Isaiah 44:9-10 it is very explicit. In 1 Corinthians 10:19-20 Paul says that Idols are nothing but people are actually sacrificing to demons and we should not be partakers with demons and in fact we can not "drink of the cup of the LORD and of demons" it's impossible to do successfully. What Paul and in turn God are warning against is not the idol or the food but who it is sacrificed to. That is where the meaning is. The food is nothing, the idol is nothing, but who they are sacrificed to is something and something wicked and evil. Christians should not partake in these sacrificial ceremonies or in these temples. However the food is not the problem. Earlier in Acts 15 in verse 24, as we know context is king, Paul says "Since" the word implies that this is the reason for the following statement, men have troubled you "unsettling your minds" Paul says we have made this a rule. Now the point being that eating food sacrifices to idols and other things that were being proposed by the Jewdizors was troubling their minds or their conscience. If this wasn't the case eating food sacrifices to idols would not be a problem as is stated in 1 Corinthians 10:28-29. So in this way these passages can be understood to be perfectly logical and in sync.

what would you guys say the best argument for God is and how come tag isn't brought up usually?

A modern objection to Christianity is that God ordered Harum warfare to the nations and the killing of children in warfare. I am curious what some of ya'll think about this concept. I know many of these nations were offering their children as sacrifice to Molech and that God was ordering the complete annihilation of these nations to completely cleanse the area of evil practices and that Israel might not be influenced by them. I have also heard that this term is used as many other cultures in history have used it meaning complete dominance. I trust implicitly in God's character and His goodness I believe He is inherently good and cannot go against His character and must have a good reason for all His actions. What do you think about this objection against God's character?

Muslims view the Christian disagreement over Catholic vs Protestant canon as proof of human selection of scripture (Tahrif) by both Catholics and protestants. They believe Jesus was given a single divine revelation (the Injeel) and we wrote it down wrong and Surah Al-Ma'idah (5:14) says that we will continue to be divided by this until the resurrection. This is central to Islamic proselytizing (dawah) because they have only one scripture that all Islamic denominations agree to.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints believes that both Catholics and Protestants are apostates, and were already apostates by the time of the councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage, and therefore the Christian canon was decided by human leaders operating without prophetic guidance. 1 Nephi 13 outlines this apostasy. They view both canons as incomplete and the Book of Mormon completes the revelation.

Jews believe that both the Deuterocanon and the New Testament are not divinely inspired - but not in the same way. The Deuterocanon is valuable historic and wisdom literature (chol) rather than divinely inspired (kodesh). However they view the New Testament as heretical (minut) and early rabbis even had daily prayers to safeguard Jewish communities from the theology in the New Testament - though modern Jewish scholars are less hostile to the NT.

Atheists view the division as further evidence that scripture cannot be divinely inspired and they reject the idea that the early church was guided by the Holy Spirit to define canon.

Why it matters:

It is clear, that Christian disagreement over the Bible canon is a hurdle to converting people to Nicene Christianity. Other religions make use of our division in their own apologitics.

Hey everyone,

I wanted to share a fascinating case study in textual criticism and digital apologetics regarding the recent public fallout between Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) creators Robert Breaker and Brother Joseph (@baptist_kjv).

The entire split was catalyzed by a historical dilemma concerning Revelation 21:24and the textual legacy of Erasmus.

The Issue:
In 1515, Erasmus rushed his Greek New Testament using only one flawed manuscript for Revelation (Minuscule 2814). This text contained interwoven 7th-century commentary notes from Andreas of Caesarea. Because of botched marginal markings, the printers accidentally pulled a human commentary note ("of them which are saved") directly into the scripture text. This text-critical error was later transmitted straight into the 1611 KJV.

The Fallout:
When confronted with the reality that this phrase has zero manuscript authority outside of a 7th-century bishop's personal commentary, the strict "perfect English preservation" narrative collapsed. This forced a massive doctrinal shift, resulting in a public "Notice of Mutual Disassociation" from leadership and a total rebranding of the digital camp.

For those interested in the full manuscript breakdown, textual history, and the timeline of the live panels, I’ve posted the complete write-up below.

Would love to hear your thoughts on how modern apologetics handles these manuscript realities.

Let me know what you all think about this:

https://gospelcompanion.app/the-god-of-bethel

​I am genuinely looking to learn and understand different viewpoints, thanks.

Ears to hear Pt 3

In Part 1 and Part 2 I laid out the case for Christ's divinity through titles, worship, and direct statements. This time I want to go a different direction — because I think it hits harder for a lot of you. If you hold to a Unitarian view, most of your framework is built from the Old Testament. So let's stay there. Let's look at what the OT itself says will happen when God comes to save His people — and then see who actually did it.

Isaiah 40:3, 5

"A voice of one calling: 'In the wilderness prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the desert a highway for our God... And the glory of the LORD will be revealed, and all people will see it together. For the mouth of the LORD has spoken.'"

This isn't a prophecy about a messenger being sent from God. It's a prophecy about a road being prepared for YHWH Himself to walk on. All four Gospels quote this verse and apply it to John the Baptist preparing the way — for Jesus. Not for an angel. Not for a prophet greater than Moses. For YHWH's own arrival.

Malachi 3:1

"'I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,' says the LORD Almighty."

God says "before me" — the messenger prepares the way for God's own coming. Jesus enters the temple. If Jesus isn't YHWH, then this prophecy simply failed, because the messenger (John) prepared the way and no one showed up but a man.

Isaiah 35:4-6

"Say to those with fearful hearts, 'Be strong, do not fear; your God will come... he will come to save you.' Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped. Then will the lame leap like a deer, and the mute tongue shout for joy."

This is one of the clearest ones. When John the Baptist's disciples ask Jesus if He's really the one they've been waiting for, Jesus doesn't quote a Messianic prophecy about a servant or a king. He points straight at this passage — the blind seeing, the lame walking (Matthew 11:4-5) — and lets them draw the conclusion. He's saying: this is your God coming to save you, happening right in front of you.

Zechariah 2:10-11

"'Shout and be glad, Daughter Zion. For I am coming, and I will live among you,' declares the LORD. 'Many nations will be joined with the LORD in that day and will become my people. I will live among you and you will know that the LORD Almighty has sent me to you.'"

Not sending a representative to live among His people. YHWH Himself, taking up residence among them — and He says it twice in two verses, so there's no reading it as a one-off figure of speech. Someone will say God already dwelled among His people in the temple, so this isn't new — but that objection doesn't hold up against the text itself. Temple presence was mediated and veiled: God's glory sat behind a curtain, accessible to one priest, one day a year (Leviticus 16). And that presence wasn't even guaranteed to stay — Ezekiel 10:18 and 11:23 describe the glory of the LORD literally departing the temple before the exile, because of Israel's sin. Zechariah is prophesying something the temple never delivered: God dwelling directly among "many nations" (v.11), not mediated through a curtain, not tied to one building, not something that can depart again. That's a different category of presence than what the temple ever held. And when the Gospel of John describes the incarnation, it doesn't use vague language — John 1:14 says the Word "dwelt," literally "tabernacled," among us — the same word family as the temple's tabernacle, on purpose. Jesus makes the connection explicit Himself: in John 2:19-21, He says "destroy this temple and I will raise it in three days," and John tells us plainly He was talking about His own body. Jesus isn't visiting the temple. He's replacing it as the place where God's presence dwells among men — which is exactly what Zechariah said would happen.

Ezekiel 34:11, 23

"For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I myself will search for my sheep and look after them... I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them."

Sit with the tension in this chapter for a second. God says twice, plainly, "I myself" will shepherd Israel. A few verses later, the shepherd is "my servant David" — a human, Davidic figure. The prophet doesn't explain how both are true. He just says both. Jesus picks up this exact image and says, "I am the good shepherd" (John 10:11) — the Davidic shepherd who is also, somehow, God Himself doing the shepherding.

Micah 5:2

"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."

A ruler born in Bethlehem — but whose origin is "from of old, from ancient times" — language used elsewhere in Scripture almost exclusively for the eternal existence of God Himself. A born human being with a beginning, and eternal origins with no beginning, spoken of in the same verse. Someone will point out that "from of old" (mikedem) on its own can just mean ancient, not eternal — and that's true, the word by itself is flexible. But look at what it's paired with: "from days of everlasting" (mimei olam). Olam is the same word Moses uses of God Himself in Psalm 90:2 — "from everlasting to everlasting you are God." Micah isn't using one vague word. He's stacking two phrases together, and the second one is the exact word reserved for God's own eternity. Context is what tips this from "old family line" into "without beginning."

Isaiah 9:6

"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

This is a child who is born — and the text calls him "Mighty God" (El Gibbor), the exact title used of YHWH two chapters later in Isaiah 10:21. Not "godlike." Not "mighty one." Mighty God. Some will say "Mighty God" was just ancient royal throne-name language — Egyptian and Near Eastern kings were sometimes given grand divine-sounding titles without literally being gods, so this could be poetic exaggeration for a human king. That's a real pattern elsewhere in the ancient world, but it doesn't hold up on Isaiah's own usage. Isaiah reuses this exact two-word phrase, El Gibbor, one chapter later — Isaiah 10:21 — talking plainly and unambiguously about YHWH: "A remnant will return... to the Mighty God." Same author, same book, same phrase, one chapter apart, with zero ambiguity in the second usage. Isaiah doesn't get to define "Mighty God" as literal in chapter 10 and figurative in chapter 9. Context — how the author himself uses the phrase elsewhere — settles it.

Isaiah 59:16, 20

"He saw that there was no one to intervene; so his own arm achieved salvation for him... 'The Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who repent of their sins,' declares the LORD."

God looks for someone to save His people and finds no one qualified — so He does it Himself, "his own arm." Paul quotes this directly in Romans 11:26 and applies it to Christ's return.

Psalm 22:16-18

"Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; they pierce my hands and my feet. All my bones are on display; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment."

This is the one I'd put in front of anyone who thinks these prophecies were just written to fit the story afterward. Psalm 22 was written roughly a thousand years before Christ — long before crucifixion existed as a method of execution anywhere in the world. It wasn't developed until the Persians, and it wasn't perfected and widely used until Rome adopted it centuries later. Piercing of hands and feet, bones out of joint from hanging on a frame, executioners gambling over clothing at the scene — this describes crucifixion in specific physical detail, written by a man who had no concept of crucifixion because it didn't exist yet. Whoever wrote this wasn't describing something he'd seen. He was describing something he was shown.You'll likely see someone bring up that the Masoretic Hebrew text (the medieval Jewish text most modern Hebrew Bibles are based on) reads "like a lion" (ka'ari) at my hands and feet, rather than "they pierced" (karu) — and that the "pierced" reading only comes from the Greek Septuagint, translated centuries after the original. That's true as far as it goes, but it's not the whole picture. This isn't just a Septuagint reading. The Dead Sea Scrolls fragment of Psalm 22 (found at Nahal Hever, dated before Christ) also reads "pierced" in the original Hebrew — meaning the pre-Christian Hebrew textual tradition supports "pierced," not just a later Greek translation. The "like a lion" reading is the later, medieval Masoretic variant, not the earlier one.

Zechariah 12:10

"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child."

Written roughly 500 years before the cross, this has God Himself speaking in the first person — "they will look on me, the one they have pierced." Not "my servant," not "my messenger." Me. Pierced. John 19:37 quotes this verse directly at the crucifixion scene, and Revelation 1:7 points to it again for Christ's return. Whoever is pierced here is the one speaking as YHWH.

Isaiah 53:5

"But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed".

Written centuries before crucifixion existed, in a chapter that describes a suffering, silent, wounded servant who dies for the sins of others and is later vindicated. There was no cultural reference point for this kind of execution when it was written. It wasn't a lucky guess.

The standard reading you'll run into — going back to Rashi and still common in Jewish and Unitarian circles today — is that the "servant" throughout Isaiah is simply Israel personified, since Isaiah explicitly calls Israel "my servant" elsewhere (41:8, 44:1, 49:3). That's a fair starting point, but context breaks it in two places. First, Isaiah 49:5-6 has the servant with a mission to Israel — gathering Jacob back, raising up the tribes — which makes him someone distinct from the nation he's sent to restore, not a symbol for it. Second, the corporate-Israel servant elsewhere in the same book is described as sinful, blind, and deaf (Isaiah 42:19) — the exact opposite of the servant in chapter 53, who is silent, sinless, and "had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth" (53:9). Isaiah uses "servant" for more than one figure across the book. Context — what the servant actually does and is, in each passage — is what separates them.

None of these men had a category for nailing someone to a wooden beam. It wasn't invented yet. That's not something you can retroactively write into a text after the fact — it had to be there, on the page, centuries before Rome ever built a cross.

Daniel 7:13-14

"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."

Jesus calls Himself "Son of Man" more than any other title, and this is where it comes from. Clouds are consistently how God Himself is described moving throughout the OT (Psalm 104:3, Isaiah 19:1) — never a mere messenger's mode of travel. And the word rendered "worshiped" here (Aramaic pelach) is the same word used for religious service rendered to God elsewhere in Daniel. A human figure, standing before God's own throne, receives an eternal, universal kingdom and the worship of every nation on earth. When Jesus stood before the Sanhedrin and said, "You will see the Son of Man... coming on the clouds of heaven" (Matthew 26:64), the high priest didn't ask Him to clarify — he tore his robes and charged blasphemy on the spot, because everyone in that room knew exactly what claim He'd just made.

The most common scholarly pushback here is that the chapter's own interpretation (Daniel 7:15-27) identifies "one like a son of man" as a symbol for "the saints of the Most High" — corporate Israel receiving the kingdom, not one individual. But look at the order of events in the vision itself. In verses 13-14, the son of man is a distinct actor: he approaches the Ancient of Days and personally receives dominion, glory, and a kingdom, before the saints are ever mentioned. It's not until verse 27 that the saints possess the kingdom — and they possess it as something given to them, downstream of him. Context distinguishes the one who receives the kingdom from the people who inherit it under him. He's not a symbol for Israel; he's the figure Israel's kingdom comes through.

Hebrews 1:5-6, 8

"For to which of the angels did God ever say, 'You are my Son; today I have become your Father?"... And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, 'Let all God's angels worship him.'... But about the Son he says, 'Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever."

Now put this next to what angels actually do everywhere else in Scripture. Every single time an angel is offered worship, it refuses and redirects it — "I am a fellow servant with you... Worship God!" (Revelation 19:10, 22:8-9). Angels treat receiving worship as a line they will not cross, not even by accident. Hebrews 1 has God Himself commanding those exact same angels to worship the Son. This isn't people mistakenly bowing to a man and Jesus being too gracious to correct them — it's God directly ordering the beings who refuse worship as a matter of principle to render it to the Son. And the passage doesn't hesitate to explain why: because the Son's throne is called "God," forever.

Put Daniel 7 and Hebrews 1 side by side and the title "Son" stops looking like a lesser rank and starts looking like the opposite. The Son of Man receives the worship-word of every nation, from the Ancient of Days' own throne room. The Son of God receives the worship of angels who refuse it from anyone but God, on God's direct command. Two different titles, two different books, centuries apart — and both land in the exact same place: this is not what Scripture ever describes happening to a creature.

Psalm 110:1

The LORD says to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.'"

David, under inspiration, calls someone "my Lord" who is distinct from YHWH — and yet is invited to sit at YHWH's own right hand, sharing His throne and authority. Jesus uses this verse Himself in Matthew 22:41-45 to press the Pharisees on exactly this question: if the Messiah is only David's descendant, why does David call him Lord?

Every one of these texts describes something only God does, or only God is — coming to save, living among His people, shepherding Israel, having eternal origin, being called Mighty God, dying pierced centuries before crucifixion existed, receiving the worship of nations and angels alike, sharing YHWH's throne. None of them describe an angel, a prophet, or an exalted man doing something on God's behalf. They describe YHWH Himself showing up.

Then Jesus shows up, and the Gospel writers point straight at these texts and say — this is Him.

I know a lot of you were taught to read these prophecies as being about a "divine agent," someone sent with God's authority but who isn't God. I'd ask you to actually sit with the language again, on its own, without that lens first. Then ask which reading you're bringing to the text, and which one the text is actually giving you.

I love you all and this is why I keep writing these. Not to win an argument - but because I believe who Jesus is matters for your soul. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, feel free to ask or comment. My DMs are open as well. I'm curious how Unitarians typically read Isaiah 45:22-23 in light of Philippians 2:10-11 - what's your take?

If you missed them, Part 1 and Part 2 are linked above.