Difficult Verses

Difficult Verses

Thomas Allen

In “The Bible Is Reliable, Part 2,” Grace (in) Focus, November/December 2022, page 20, Dix Winston identifies some difficult sayings of Jesus. Two are (emphases are added):

(1) John 14:28: “Ye heard how I said to you, I go away, and I come unto you. If ye loved me, ye would have rejoiced, because I go unto the Father: for the Father is greater than I.”

(2) Luke 18:19: “And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, even God.”

Two other verses that he does not mention that would be difficult from his perspective are:

(1) 1 Corinthians 8:6: “yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.”

(2) 1 Timothy 2:5: “For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus,”

(These two verses are the key verses that convinced Isaac Newton that Trinitarianism errs and Unitarianism is correct.)

Mr. Winston believes that the Bible is without error and should be understood literally. Therefore, the Bible correctly states what Jesus says.

Further, Mr. Winston is a Trinitarian. Yet, because of his faith in the Trinity Doctrine, he finds these verses difficult to understand. For him, Jesus obviously does not literally mean what he says. Thus, Jesus does not really mean that the Father is greater than he is or that he is not good because only God is good. Moreover, Paul does not really mean that only the Father is God. Being God, Jesus cannot mean what he clearly says in these verses. Not meaning what he clearly says, Jesus consequently deceives those who heard him and the readers of the Bible today. (Unless he wants to risk being a heretic, Mr. Winston cannot use the Jesus-speaking-in-his-human-nature argument because the Council of Chalcedon [where Jesus was declared to have two independent natures and wills] declared that whenever Jesus spoke, he always spoke as God the Son and never as a mere human.)

Like all Trinitarians, Mr. Winston does not believe in Occam’s razor: With competing explanations, a simple explanation is generally preferred to a complex explanation. While the Trinitarian explanation of these verses is complex, the Unitarian explanation is simple.

Unlike Trinitarians, Unitarians do follow Occam’s razor. They believe that Jesus literally means what he says in these verses. Thus, Jesus really does mean that the Father is greater than he is and that only God the Father is good.

Unlike Trinitarians, who believe that Jesus does not mean what he says and that these verses need to be explained away, Unitarians accept what Jesus says and have no need to explain them away. While the Trinitarian explanation of these verses is complex, the Unitarian explanation is simple.

Thus, Trinitarians let their doctrine decide how they interpret these verses. On the other hand, Unitarians let these verses guide them in establishing the Unitarian Doctrine.

Because these verses conflict with the Trinity Doctrine, Trinitarians find them difficult to understand. However, because these verses support the Unitarian Doctrine, Unitarians do not find them difficult.

Appendix

The following are other verses that Mr. Winston does not mention that are hard sayings of Jesus for Trinitarians. Trinitarians cannot use the Jesus-speaking-in-his-human-nature argument to explain away these verses without risking heresy. These verses are from the King James translation with emphases added.

– Matthew 4:10: Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

– Matthew 27:46: And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

– Mark 12:29: And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

– Mark 13:32: But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

– Mark 14:36: And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt. 

– John 1:18: No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

– John 5:19: Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

– John 7:16: Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

– John 8:28: Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

– John 8:40: But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

– John 17:3: And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

– John 20:17: Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

If Jesus were a co-equal God with the Father as the Trinity Doctrine proclaims, he would not have to depend on the Father as he says he does in some of the above verses.  Further, if he were God, his will would be the same as the Father’s, and he could not forsake himself. Moreover, he would be omniscient. Also, he would not declare God his Father as the only true God.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

A Response to a Minister Re COVID

 

A Response to a Minister Re COVID

Thomas Allen

The following are comments to “Ministry After Covid?” by Bob Wilkin. Mr. Wilkin urges people who do not wear masks to wear masks when they are around paranoid people who fear nonmask wearers. To keep from offending mask wearers, nonmask wearers should wear masks when they are around mask wearers. 

The next four paragraphs were emailed to Wilkin, but he did not reply to them.

The next major health crisis is going to be injuries and delayed deaths from the experimental COVID vaccines. These vaccines are neither safe nor effective. (https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2020/12/covid-19-vaccine.html, https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2021/03/more-on-covid-19-vaccine.html, or https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2020/12/covid-19-vaccine-its-effectiveness-and.html.) Moreover, when adjusted for undercounting deaths from the vaccines and overcounting deaths from COVID, more people have died of the vaccines than of COVID in the U.S. At least 10 times more people have died of the vaccines than reported. Less than 10 percent of the people reported as dying of COVID actually died of COVID in the U.S.

As for masks, you write, “we will all need to be sensitive to fellow believers who have strong convictions about everyone wearing masks.” What about people like me who have strong convictions that wearing masks causes more harm than good? (https://tcallenco.blogspot.com/2021/04/masks.html) Are the everyone-needs-to-wear-masks proponents going to be sensitive to people like me? If masks protect, what does a person wearing a mask have to fear from a person not wearing a mask? Besides, I do not understand how a mask with gaps around the edges and holes many times larger than the virus can offer any protection from the virus. Wearing a mask as protection from the virus is like hiding behind a chain-link fence while someone is shooting at you and expecting not to be hit.

Unlike the vaccines, which are neither safe nor effective, there are treatments for COVID that are safe and effective. However, these treatments are being suppressed.

For vaccination and mask-wearing, the guiding principle should be “my body, my choice” and not “your body, my choice.” Anyone who chooses not to wear a mask or not to be vaccinated should be allowed that choice without any penalty. Likewise, anyone who chooses to wear a mask or to be vaccinated should be allowed that choice. If vaccination or mask-wearing really protects, then the vaccinated and mask-wearers have nothing to fear from those who are not vaccinated or do not wear masks. No person should force another person to be vaccinated or to wear a mask — the “your body, my choice” principle.

The knowledgeable catering to the ignorance of the ignorant keeps them ignorant. It does the ignorant no good and may even harm him. Instead, the knowledgeable should try to educate the ignorant. They should inform the ignorant of the uselessness and dangers of wearing masks as protection from a virus.

If the mask wearer is stupid, then the knowledgeable is wasting his time trying to educate the stupid. For stupid people to learn is extremely difficult and even impossible. In any event, a nonmask wearer should not become a mask wearer for the sake of the mask wearers.

Appendix.

People have speculated about the real purpose of the COVID-19 “vaccine.” Health officials, big medicine, and politicians claim that the purpose of the “vaccine” is to prevent people from contracting and spreading COVID-19. Moreover, a “vaccinated” person would be less likely to be hospitalized because of COVID-19 or die of it. Now, we know that these people lied to us. Studies are showing that a “vaccinated” person is more likely to contract COVID-19, be hospitalized, and die than an unvaccinated person.

Other than making a fortune for liability-free big pharma and big medicine, what is the purpose of the “vaccine?” Some speculate that its purpose is to cull the herd — the large-scale slaughter of humanity. Others speculate that its purpose is to create large-scale disability and, by that, generate enormous profits for big pharma and the medical industry. Or, could the purpose be a combination of these two? The “vaccines” cause all sorts of chronic terminal disabilities for big medicine to treat with drugs while killing the victims at various rates. 

(Many people confuse eugenics with culling the herd. Eugenics encourages high-quality people to reproduce while discouraging or preventing the reproduction of low-quality people. [Today, dysgenics is practiced as low-quality people are encouraged to reproduce while high-quality people are discouraged from reproducing.] Culling the herd means slaughtering the herd without regard to the quality of the people killed.)

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Two Thoughts Related to Economics

Two Thoughts Related to Economics

Thomas Allen

The following discusses two errors related to money that Brandon Smith makes and protective tariffs and wages.

Brandon Smith’s Errors

Brandon Smith’s “Simple fixes to our economic problems that establishment elites won't allow” contains at least two errors.

1. “Basically, the Fed bankrolls the corruption through fiat money creation while government officials and corporations utilize the money to wreak havoc on our living standards. Ending the Fed would solve the fiat money problem” Eliminating the Fed would not eliminate the fiat money problem. The federal government can just print and issue government notes and their electronic equivalent. It did so during the Lincoln administration with the greenback, which was a fiat currency, that significantly reduced the purchasing power of the dollar. Merely cutting out the middleman, the Fed, does not solve the fiat money problem.

2. “[W]hile it is true that the Constitution explicitly states that the U.S. Treasury becomes the only issuer of U.S. currency, this was done at a time when our currency was backed by gold and silver and there was no corrupt middleman in the form of a central bank.” The Constitution does not make the US government the only issuer of US currency. It only delegates the federal government the power to coin gold and silver and to fix the weights and purity of the coins so minted. Also, the U.S. Treasury is not mentioned in the Constitution. Moreover, the federal government never issued paper money until the Lincoln administration. Before then, private banks issued all paper currency, and they continued to issue paper currency until Franklin Roosevelt’s administration. During that time the federal government issued several types of paper currency (US notes, gold certificates, silver certificates, and Treasury Notes of 1890). It continued to issue silver certificates until the 1960s and US notes until the 1970s. When the drafters of the Constitution removed the authority of the federal government to issue bills of credit, they thought that they had removed the authority for the federal government to issue paper currency. 

Protective Tariffs and Wages

Many people support protective tariffs because they believe that the tariffs will protect jobs and raise wages. If tariffs raise wages and protect jobs, it is only for those in the protected industries — and because of immigration, they may not even do that. However, they raise prices for everyone and, by that, they reduce the standard of living.

Historically, manufacturers have been the proponents of protective tariffs. They want protected markets for their inefficient companies. Also, they have been big supporters of large-scale immigration to suppress wages. Increasing the supply of workers suppresses wages and thwarts innovation.

Often, companies will use the argument of a lack of skilled workers so that they can import workers to work for less pay to suppress labor costs, i.e., wages. For example, companies may claim that a shortage of computer programmers exists because they have to pay computer programmers higher salaries than they want to pay. Consequently, these companies import foreign computer programmers who work for less pay. Importing foreign computer programmers to fill computer programmer jobs at lower wages prevents the market from signaling via higher wages that a shortage of computer programmers exists. Thus, fewer domestic workers learn computer programming skills. Allowing the markets to signal that a shortage of computer programmers exists encourages more people to learn the skills of computer programmers.

If people want to raise wages, they should severely restrict immigration. Fewer workers lead to higher wages and innovations that lower the cost of production. Moreover, immigration restrictions do so without increasing the cost of living.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More economic articles.

Four Comments on Political Issues

Four Comments on Political Issues

Thomas Allen

Blow four items are discussed. They are two ways of addressing secession, saving “our Democracy,” the difference between progressives and conservatives, and inalienable versus unalienable.

Two Ways of Addressing Secession

There are two ways of addressing secession: the Wilsonian and the Lincolnian.

  According to the Wilsonian principle, all nations capable of maintaining their own country should have their own country. (A nation or nationality is a people who have a common genetic ancestry, culture, language, and history; who have common traditions and customs; and who are capable of forming or constituting an independent country.) Since the people of the Donbass region are capable of maintaining their own country, they should have their own independent country, which they have done with the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic. (Through a plebiscite, the people of these two countries voted to join Russia, and Russia accepted them.)

According to the Lincolnian principle, once a region is part of a country, it can never secede and form an independent country unless it wins that right with war. Thus, being part of Ukraine, the two oblasts of Donbass can never be independent countries unless they defeat Ukraine in war. Furthermore, under the Lincolnian principle, Russia has the right to annex Ukraine because Ukraine seceded from Russia and did so without defeating Russia in war. 

Under the Wilsonian principle, the Ukrainian people deserve their own countries. However, under the Lincolnian participle, they do not unless they defeat Russia in war. 

Likewise, under the Lincoln principle, China has the right to annex Taiwan. Under the Wilsonian principle, China has no right to annex Taiwan; the Taiwanese deserve their own country, or perhaps several countries since several ethnicities inhabit Taiwan.

“Saving our Democracy”

According to the Democrats, the purpose of the January 6 select committee, the violation of due process in arresting and detaining the January 6 protestors, the censoring of people who claim that the Democrats stole the 2020 presidential election, and the lynching of Donald Trump is to protect “our Democracy.” The reason that Trump supporters were rallying in Washington on January 6 was to protect “our Democracy.” They were protesting the Democrats stealing the 2020 presidential election — and plenty of evidence supports the conclusion that the Democrats stole the 2020 presidential election.

Furthermore, Democrats are notorious for doing what they accuse others of doing. Thus, Democrats accuse Trump and his followers of destroying “our Democracy” while Democrats destroyed “our Democracy” by stealing the presidential election. Democrats stole the election, so they blame Trump and his followers for trying to steal the election.

Difference Between Progressives and Conservatives

G.K. Chesterton explains the difference between progressives and conservatives. About progressives, he writes, “The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes.” About conservatives, he writes, “The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.” Thus, progressives begin idiotic programs, and conservatives preserve them. Worse, Conservatives make the progressive programs operate more efficiently and effectively.

Seldom do conservatives eliminate progressive mistakes. Prohibition is an example of a progressive program that has been eliminated — and that was because progressives abandoned it. 

Another progressive program that has been abolished is eugenics. Conservatives did not end eugenics; progressives did. Progressives replaced eugenics with the genocide of the White race, which racial nihilistic conservatives only weakly oppose. (Paradoxically, the genocide of the hated White race leads to the genocide of the beloved American Negro.)

Inalienable vs. Unalienable

Some people stress a great difference between inalienable and unalienable. For them, the two words mean entirely different things — even opposite meanings. They maintain that unalienable rights cannot be transferred whereas inalienable rights can be. Following are some dictionary definitions of the two words.

These definitions are from Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition: 

– "inalienable," adj. Not transferable or assignable (inalienable property interests). — also termed unalienable.

– "unalienable," adj. See INALIENABLE.

Thus, according to Black’s Law Dictionary, the two words mean the same thing. It makes no distinction between the two.

Webster’s 1828 dictionary gives the following definitions:

– INALIENABLE, a. Unalienable; that cannot be legally or justly alienated or transferred to another. The dominions of a king are inalienable. All men have certain natural rights which are inalienable. The estate of a minor is inalienable, without a reservation of the right of redemption, or the authority of the legislature.

– UNALIENABLE, a. Not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as unalienable rights.

According to Webster, the two words seem to mean the same thing — especially, since he defines “inalienable” to mean “unalienable.”

The following are definitions of "unalienable" from other dictionaries:

– “Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable” – American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language.

– “law a variant of inalienable” – Collins English Dictionary.

– “not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights.” – Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary.

– “inalienable” – Merriam Webster.

The following are the definitions of "inalienable" given in these four dictionaries:

– “That cannot be transferred to another or others: inalienable rights” – American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language.

– “not able to be transferred to another; not alienable” – Collins English Dictionary.

– “not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights” – Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary.

– “incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred” – Merriam Webster

“Unalienable” and “inalienable” look like they mean the same thing. Merriam Webster even defines “unalienable” to mean “inalienable.” What is the difference?

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.